Take It to the People, which bills itself as "Vermont's grassroots coalition for traditional marriage," is just one of the anti-civil union groups that continue to protest the state's July 1, which law made Vermont the first and only state to allow same-sex couples to enter a legal institution similar to marriage.
"We, the undersigned, urge you to amend the Vermont Constitution, this session, to state that marriage in Vermont is exclusively reserved for unions between one (1) man and one (1) woman, only, " reads the petition for a Vermont constitutional amendment being circulated by members of Take It to the People.
The debate over same-sex rights in Vermont still continues, with thousands of Vermonters registering their opposition to the bill by displaying "Take Back Vermont" signs on their front-lawns.
The signs, a brainchild of Dick Lambert, a dairy farmer from Washington, are just part of the backlash against the law. In state Republican primaries on Sept. 12, a record number of voters, mobilized by anti-civil union groups, turned out and ousted five incumbents who had supported the bill.
Lambert and members of Take It To the People could not be reached for comment.
Ruth Dwyer, who was seen as the stronger opponent of civil unions, won the GOP gubernatorial nomination over William Meub, who also campaigned for repeal of the law.
"Like in the aftermath of all civil rights advances, things are going to get really ugly for a while," said Dorothy Mammen, Coordinator for Vermont Freedom to Marry Action Committee -- a volunteer lobby organization, "I've heard of a sign in Randolph, that said: 'save a deer, kill a queer.'"
"The Take Back Vermont slogan is really aggressive and threatening," History Professor Annelise Orleck said.
Orleck and her partner, the journalist and some-times Dartmouth professor Alexis Jetter, testified in front of the Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committees in defense of the bill earlier this year.
According to Orleck, who is a civil rights historian, the backlash against civil unions is a manifestation of class warfare caused by the deeper economic problems in Vermont -- where many people have been left behind by the new economy.
"This is a campaign for scapegoats," she said. "And, the sanctioning of the Republican Party makes the small minority feel like they are part of righteous movement."
"The people behind the Take back Vermont are trying to make it seem that this is a thing imposed by flatlanders [people from outside of Vermont] on them," Mammen said. "This ignores the fact that there are native Vermonters who are gay or support gay rights."
"We are trying to talk to people and get them to hear our personal stories about our partners and our unions," she said.
Hundreds of volunteers from Mammen's organization have been speaking to their neighbors and trying to promote dialogue on civil unions, she said.
"I've been really impressed by the positive backlash against the backlash," said Christopher LaBarbera '02, a philosophy major from Long Island, New York, who plans to write a thesis about the civil union debate.
"I've been driving around and seeing signs that say 'Keep Vermont civil,' and 'Take Vermont forward,'" he said.
Other organizations have been using their opponents' resources against them -- by adding ".com" to Take Back Vermont signs. However, when people actually visit Takebackvermont.com website, they find a pro-civil union message.
Mammen and others on the pro-civil union side see this as a temporary reaction and expect that a decade from now civil unions will barely be an issue.
"I'm proud of Vermont and think we can move forward," Mammen said. "What I'd like to see the take back "neighbors talking to neighbors" -- let's talk Vermont."
"I don't see this lasting," Orleck said. "Vermont is a historically progressive state, not a state of haters."
In fact, they don't see the civil union bill as going far enough.
"In a way it is Jim Crow law," LaBarbera said. "It makes gay people separate but equal and without full recognition under the law."
The Civil Union Bill
In 1997, three same-sex couples, all Vermont residents, sued the state after being denied marriage licenses. They claimed 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."
While a trial court dismissed the case, upon appeal, Vermont's Supreme Court ruled in December 1999 that in accordance with the Common Benefits Clause, the couples did, in fact, have the same rights to union that opposite sex couples have and mandates that the state legislature protect these rights.
In March of this year, the Vermont House of Representatives passed its civil union bill, after hearing months of furious debate between Vermonters on both sides of the issue. The issue so galvanized voters that over 3,000 people or one percent of the voters in Vermont turned up at one hearing on Feb. 1.
The bill was passed by the Vermont Senate in April and signed into law soon after by state Governor Howard Dean.
Under the bill, couples receive a civil union certificate rather than a marriage certificate.
To join in a civil union, citizens must be at least 18 years old and may not be close blood relatives. Town clerks issue civil union licenses, which may then be "certified" by a justice of the peace or willing member of the clergy.
