For Beth Robinson '86, the legal battle for gay rights has come to consume both her professional and personal lives.
Robinson, who served co-counsel to the plaintiffs in a groundbreaking case over the legal rights of same-sex couples, spoke Tuesday evening at Sigma Delta Sorority about her involvement in the legal battle. The 1999 case, Baker v. State, ultimately led to the legalization of Vermont civil unions
The fight for gay rights is a personal battle for Robinson, who participated in a civil union in August 2001.
Robinson was animated and had the audience thoroughly engrossed and frequently laughing out loud as she mixed legal rhetoric with engaging stories and personal humor. "This is a struggle about the real lives of real people who are being told their lives don't exist. They experience daily assaults on the integrity of their families," Robinson said.
In December 1995, Robinson helped to launch the Vermont Freedom to Marry task force, which worked to pave the road for gay rights litigation through a public awareness campaign. The task force also took on plaintiffs and brought the issue of gay marriage to the courts.
Only one of the seven reasons given by the state in opposition to gay marriage during the Baker v. State case was not thrown out by the trial court: the argument that only a man and a woman can beget a child. The case made it to the Vermont Supreme Court, which rejected the argument as invalid on the grounds that not having children does not make a marriage any less valid and all children deserve a stable environment in which to grow up. The court stated in its opinion that there was no reason to justify a difference and that what must be recognized was "our common humanity."
The Supreme Court handed down its decision as a compromise, and claimed the real issue was not marriage, but benefits, and that these could be created in a civil union without compromising marriage.
"When everyone else was cheering I went home and sobbed. I was crushed," Robinson said of the verdict that took gay marriage off the table.
"I want the choice to marry," she said.
But eventually, Robinson came to support civil unions, which award all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the title.
Robinson outlined four distinctions between a civil union and a marriage. First, she said that although a civil union provides the state benefits of a marriage, it fails to award the greatest benefit -- the social significance that comes from being married. Secondly, according to Robinson, civil unions re-create the notion of separate but equal and enforce the concept of second class citizenship. Robinson also argued that civil unions are not recognized by federal law, making social security benefits and pension plans inaccessible for same-sex couples. Lastly, Robinson pointed out that civil unions are not secure beyond state lines.
Standing on the opposing side of the spectrum is another Dartmouth graduate. Matt Daniels '85 is one of the driving forces behind the constitutional amendment that would put a stop to same-sex marriages across the nation. The Defense of Marriage act would amend the constitution to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, making gay marriage illegal in every state in America. Daniels has said publicly that he is not anti-gay but rather pro-family.
Commenting on Daniels' legislation, Robinson said, "Dartmouth is a great school. It is not surprising it is spitting out leaders across the spectrum."
