Starting July 1, most provisions of the "civil union bill," signed into law this spring, will go into effect in Vermont -- making it the first state to create an institution parallel to marriage for same-sex couples.
According to Beth Robinson '86, who was one of the lead lawyers on the plaintiff's side, the civil union bill is an important step towards equality for same-sex couples, because it will provide them with most of benefits that are available to opposite-sex couples. She predicted that this "will be a catalyst," and that other states will most likely follow suit in the near future, looking to Vermont as a role model.
But Robinson's is an optimistic viewpoint -- coming from one of the founders of Vermont's Freedom To Marry Task Force, which was created in 1995 to educate Vermonters about the concerns of same-sex couples.
In reality, controversy remains intense over the issues of homosexuality, the family and the state's role in regulating private issues, even though the gay rights movement started nearly forty years ago.
According to Dartmouth Religion Professor Charles Stinson, there has been growing sympathy since the 1960s for the gay community and people have increasingly called for fairer treatment toward homosexuals. However, he called the issues involved with this case, "very sensitive, like all sex."
The fact that Vermont took this leap toward equality between its heterosexual and homosexual citizens is highly significant because it is the first state to move so boldly forward, signing into law something that has been a decades-long emotional issue for many.
Dartmouth involvement
Many members of the Dartmouth community were involved in the case -- from the suing attorney, Robinson, to various faculty members who testified before the state congress, to graduate and undergraduate students who attended the hearings.
Pam Misener, Dartmouth coordinator of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students on campus, said she did not listen to all of the testimony -- which occurred on two separate nights this spring -- but she said many College-affiliated people testified in favor of gay unions.
As far as Misener could tell, Dartmouth voices were predominantly pro-change, because she said she did not hear any vocal opposition.
According to Elizabeth Stanhope, a math graduate student, who also teaches classes at the College, Vermont citizens, could put their names in "for" or "against" boxes when they arrived at the statehouse. Hers was one of the names chosen at random to testify before the legislature.
In a BlitzMail message from Argentina, where she is now studying, Stanhope explained that she believed "the state should play no role in personal unions such as marriage ... It is not appropriate for the state to define what it means to be a family."
She called the state's former policy of denying unions between same-sex couples "discriminatory" because "to deny same-sex couples legal benefits simply because this pairing of physical characteristics is an act of discrimination."
Dartmouth History professor Annelise Orleck and her partner of 14 years, English professor Alexis Jetter, also testified in the hearings.
Orleck said she testified in favor of same-sex marriages -- not the parallel plan of "civil union" for which the legislature opted.
However, she called the civil union law a "breakthrough" and said it was definitely a step in the right direction, although added that "separate is never equal."
She said she received a great many positive responses to her testimony -- interestingly, Orleck received both the most positive and negative responses from religious groups. She said her testimony was especially effective because she and Jetter testified while holding their children -- ages one and four -- in their laps.
Orleck said some speakers equated homosexuals with "child molesters" and other such criminals.
However, she said, "Being there with our children belied a lot of the ignorant stereotypes that people on the other side were trying to promote about our families. Having me up there, talking about our regular family life was a more powerful refutation than anything else I could have said."
What comes next?
For many supporters of gay unions, marriage was the object -- not civil union.
"As we look at history, we learn that separate is never equal," Misener said. "Here we are again, trying to make something separate be equal. It's certainly a worthwhile effort, but it's not equal."
Stanhope also expressed happiness about the outcome, but said, "Had they actually passed 'marriage' I would be even happier. GLBT relationships are just as real and valid as straight ones. The difference in titles, 'civil union' versus 'marriage,' reflects the fear to admit that this is true."
She said she hopes the state follows its decision with further legislation that will legalize marriage for gay couples.
Again the optimist, Robinson said, "In my mind, it's not a question of whether Vermont is going to recognize same-sex marriages. It's a matter of when and how we get there."
She said she was pleased that the discourse in Vermont was kept on a civil level, but she said, "every time someone says 'No, you deserve to be a second class citizen,' it feels like discrimination."
Orleck spoke similar words, referencing the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
She said southern segregation resembled the legal segregation of same-sex couples from their opposite-sex couple counterparts in that both systems elevate a particular group of citizens and do harm to another group.
According to Orleck, this system has the most negative effect on children: "There are millions of children growing up in gay and lesbian families. It's damaging to deny them the same rights."
She said the case met criticism from some religious groups, but she said religious opposition should not drive state-determined legislation.
"This is not a theocracy," she said. "We live in a democracy, in which church and state are separate. The Constitution, which is our governing doctrine, guarantees the rights of minorities."
Both Robinson and Orleck seemed confident not only that other states would follow Vermont's lead, but that Vermont, and others, would eventually legalize marriage -- and not just the parallel system of "civil union" -- for its homosexual citizens.
"I expect there are going to be states that don't diddle around with this middle thing, and embrace full equality for same sex couples," Robinson said.
She noted that the current law does not use the common vocabulary of "marriage" that is recognized in other states, so couples may have troubles if they move from Vermont.
Religion professor Charles Stinson noted that as the gay rights movement has progressed, opposition against homosexuals has decreased markedly.
"My own view is that in 25 years from now, there will be very little controversy," he said. "There will still be opposition, but the opposition will be smaller and at the edges of society."
He predicted that in retrospect, the huge controversy surrounding this case would seem unfounded.
The case
Three same sex couples, all residents of Vermont, set the ball rolling in 1997 when they sued after being denied marriage licenses by the state.
They argued that Vermont's refusal to allow same-sex unions was in violation of the state's "Common Benefits Clause." The clause states the "government is, or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community."
After the trial court dismissed the case, the couples filed an appeal with Vermont's Supreme Court in July 1997. The case was argued in November 1998, by co-counsels Robinson, Susan Murray and Mary Bonauto.
After deliberations, the Court decided on December 20 that in accordance with the Common Benefits Clause, the couples did, in fact, have the same rights to union that opposite sex couples have. The court sent their decision to the state legislature to hammer out the details.
In March of this year, the Vermont House of Representatives passed its civil union bill, which the Senate passed in April. The bill was signed into law soon after by state Governor Howard Dean.
As of Saturday, same-sex couples will be able to enter into a legal institution intended to be parallel to marriage. To join in a civil union, citizens must be at least 18 years old and may not be close blood relatives.
Town clerks will issue civil union licenses, which may then be
"certified" by a justice of the peace or willing member of the clergy.
Couples will receive a civil union certificate rather than a marriage
certificate.
This certificate will transform gay and lesbian families from "legal strangers" to "next of kin."
