Vermont's Decision Spurs Debate about Gay Marriage

Last week's passage of a bill recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples by Vermont's State House of Representatives still leaves thorny questions about gay rights and marriage unsettled, Harvard activists on both sides of the issue said.

The bill, which will likely pass the State Senate and be signed into law by Gov. Howard Dean, gives gay and lesbian couples legal status nearly identical to that of straight couples.

It is by far the most sweeping measure of its kind in U.S. history.

David B. Orr '01, head of the Undergraduate Council Anti-homophobia Task Force, welcomed the news.

"I'm thrilled that Vermont has passed the most comprehensive domestic partner rights bill to date," Orr said.

"Any time that gay rights and equality are recognized it's a step in the right direction," said Anna M. Baldwin '00, a co-chair of the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters' Alliance (BGLTSA), "But there are larger battles that have to be fought."

Though the Vermont bill gives gay and straight couples nearly the same legal rights, it recognizes gay partnerships as "civil unions" and explicitly states that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.

Gay rights advocates see the distinction as a major fault in the bill.

"I don' think that the gay rights movement should stop until [gay couples] receive the full marriage rights that they're entitled to." said Orr.

But he said he was confident that full marriage rights will be granted to gay couples in the future.

Since the bill is limited to rights and privileges protected by the state, federally provided services like Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well as immigration rights are not affected. Further, the civil unions would not be recognized outside of Vermont.

Gay rights advocates said they hope federal courts will mediate the conflict.

Thirty states have passed laws that would deny recognition to same-sex partners who have moved from states where such unions are legal. Benefits conferred in one state would not necessarily be transferable.

In California, which had granted its gay and lesbian citizens an extensive array of domestic partnership rights, voters early this month approved a measure re-emphasizing existing state law that holds marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The Vermont Supreme Court found in December that gay couples were being denied the benefits of marriage merely because of their sexual orientation. Such discrimination, the court held, violated the state constitution's "common benefits clause," which applies to all the state's residents and not merely heterosexuals.

The ruling led to the introduction of the bill that passed last week.

Such promotion of marriage and domesticity does not sit well with many in Harvard's gay, lesbian and bisexual community.

To several activists, the idea that gay people should embrace an institution that has traditionally excluded them is offensive.

"There is a question whether we should concentrate on marriage or broader issues," said Baldwin. "There are people inside BGLTSA who dislike [gay marriage] as an assimilationist position."

Others said they questioned whether the decision distracts from more pressing concerns.

"I don't think it's doing anything to fight the basic issues of ignorance and homophobia," said Matthew S. Trent '00, a BGLTSA executive. "I think homosexuals who try to fit into the established societal norms are kidding themselves."

Baldwin, who welcomes the decision, says she can understand the arguments against it.

"Why should the state have to approve your relationship before you can obtain your rights?" she said.

Opponents of the Vermont initiative and of gay marriage in general said they were disturbed by the legislature's disregard of social norms.

But the nominal distinction between gay marriage and civil unions has also blurred the traditional lines of contention over gay rights.

"It's not gay marriage, but it's awfully close," said Catholic Student Association President Matthew S. Vogel '01. "I'm torn."

Ross G. Douthat '02, an editor of the Salient, a conservative magazine, disagreed with the measure.

"It degrades the institution of marriage," Ross said. "Homosexual and heterosexual unions should not be placed on the same level."

On the heels of the Vermont court decision in December which precipitated last week's bill, conservatives said the state had propagated its own political agenda in conferring legitimacy to behavior that a majority of Americans find to be immoral.

Some worry that the institution of the family will be undermined.

"It separates the idea of union from the idea of family," said Douthat.

Other conservatives worry that domestic partnership laws discourage heterosexuals from marrying by allowing the incentives that marriage creates to be more easily obtained.

Baldwin said she recognizes that common ground will be hard to come by.

"For some people outside BGLTSA, it's too radical; for some inside, it's not radical enough," said Baldwin.