Vermont's Courageous Decision

State legislature should act quickly to include same-sex couples in marriage statutes

Gay rights activists have finally gained some long awaited ground. On Dec. 20, the Vermont Supreme Court overturned the ruling of a lower court in the case of Baker v. Vermont excluding same-sex couples from being "married" in the eyes of the state under the state constitution's marriage statutes. The effect of the court's decision was suspended to allow the legislature time to amend laws to conform to this new interpretation of the constitution. Though lawmakers have been arguing and listening to testimony since their first day back in session, Jan. 4, House Judiciary Committee Chair Tom Little set the ambitious goal of having a bill to present before the full House by Feb. 23. That day has come and gone without any word on a bill.

While the initial assumption among many Vermont residents was that domestic partnership would be the legislative response to the judicial mandate, there are, in fact, several options between the extremes of outright legalization of gay marriage and an attempt to amend the constitution. While some extreme conservatives would do anything to avoid condoning what they view as a morally reprehensible action, we anticipate and encourage the extension of equal benefits to any and all couples that are committed to one another.

Because the Vermont Supreme Court based the decision on the state constitution, it is purely an issue of Vermont law, not subject to review by the federal courts. Some opponents of the legislation have proposed amending the state constitution to prevent same-sex marriage, but such an amendment could not come to a vote until 2002.

However, what Vermont does will have significance beyond its borders. Because the U.S. Constitution requires that states give "full faith and credit" to the judicial proceedings, including marriages, of other states, same-sex couples could marry in Vermont and expect that their status should be recognized in other states. Some states have attempted to pass laws declaring that they will not recognize such marriages, but such evasions of Constitutional responsibility should not stand up in the courts.

Such attempts would also be patently unfair. As the law in most states now stands, many same-sex committed couples are being cheated out of all the benefits of marriage under the law. States' failure to extend marriage benefits to homosexual couples is without justification on any practical grounds.

Because same-sex couples cannot be recognized as married, they are deprived of many legal benefits, from access to a spouse's insurance to hospital visitation rights, that have nothing to do with social mores and everything to do with personal commitment. Any two people who are committed to one another for the long term deserve to have these rights and privileges.

The Vermont Supreme Court was right to see through a lower court ruling that held onto a concept of marriage linked only to procreation and child rearing. Many married couples are childless, and many same-sex couples have adopted children; there is no reason to grant benefits to one group and deny them to the other.

There is no doubt that some Americans have deeply-held beliefs opposing the extension of legal benefits to same-sex couples. But as the Vermont court ruled, these beliefs should not be allowed to obscure society's duty to extend to same-sex couples the "common benefits and protections" that they deserve under the law. This distinction between the civil benefits of marriage and its religious or moral standing is the most compelling argument in favor of domestic partnership laws in response to conservatives' fears traditional marriage will be undercut.

Furthermore, laws pertaining to marriage have been revised several times during our country's history to reflect the nation's changing values. With the increasing visibility and acceptance of homosexuals and homosexual cohabitation, it only makes sense that our laws be changed to reflect changing mores.

Vermont's courage is to be applauded. We hope the state's legislature will have as much courage as its Supreme Court in extending due rights and privileges to a too long marginalized and disenfranchised group.