The Issue That Won't Go Away: Same-Sex Marriage Back in the News
If the right wing is correct, the whole institution of marriage is about crumble. On December 20th the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples must be given the same benefits and protections given opposite sex couples in civil marriage. The court left the details up to the legislature.
Many assume the Vermont legislature will enact a system of domestic partnerships, side-stepping the issue of whether to allow same-sex couples to formally marry. Others point out that the expense and bother of setting up a separate system to do the same thing as civil marriage will argue for simply opening marriage to same-sex couples. They consider it a futile exercise to see if the legislature can grant the same legal rights while, at the same time, appeasing the right wing by calling it something other than "marriage."
"This country knows from its history that Îseparate, but equal' has never been equal," said Christine Kaufmann, research and policy director for the Montana Human Rights Network. "Domestic partnership is, at best, a costly temporary measure that will eventually fail."
Some right wing activists are trying desperately to spin the ruling as a victory saying the court ruling denied same-sex marriage. Others, like GOP presidential candidate and former head of the right-wing Family Research Council Gary Bauer, understand the landmark nature of the decision. "I think what the Vermont Supreme Court did last week was in some ways worse than terrorism," Bauer said. Using less dramatic language, his GOP rivals all supported "traditional marriage" and called the decision "out-of-bounds judicial activism."
The ruling stemmed from a suit brought in July of 1997 by three same-sex couples after they were denied a marriage license by the local town clerk. The couples argued successfully that the prohibition against marriage denied them more than 1,000 benefits granted by federal law and numerous others benefits granted by Vermont state law. Those benefits include hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights, access to a partner's life, medical, or disability insurance, spousal support and equitable division of property following divorce, and many other benefits.
The decision was based on Vermont constitutional provisions and cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Vermont justices said that to extend equal rights to same-sex couples "who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting relationship is simply. . . a recognition of our common humanity."
Activists on all sides of the issue are anxiously awaiting the solution offered by the Vermont legislature which is currently in session. More than 1,000 citizens streamed to the statehouse during a blizzard to voice their opinions in the opening hearing. Whatever Vermont decides, it is sure to spur lawsuits and legislative action around the country challenging current prohibitions. A Rhode Island representative has already announced he will push for civil marriage for same-sex couples in that state. Neither Montana legislators nor activists have announced plans for any legal challenges.
In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that failure to recognize same-sex marriages amounted to gender discrimination. That set off a flurry of activity. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriage and allowed states to ignore such marriages performed in other states. Copycat laws passed in more than 30 states, including Montana. Hawaii voters subsequently passed a constitutional amendment by referendum outlawing same-sex marriages and the court dropped the suit.