RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Gay rights group plans push for same-sex marriage in region



Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau - Published: November 20, 2008

MONTPELIER — New England's largest gay and lesbian advocacy organization announced this week a plan to push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in all of the region's states by the year 2012.

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders organization, a leading legal rights organization for same-sex couples, announced Tuesday that it would use its legal and lobbying abilities to bring gay marriage to the four remaining New England states without it.

The announcement came on the fifth anniversary of the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case in Massachusetts, which led to that state's highest court legalizing same-sex marriage. Last month, Connecticut followed in its footsteps when its Supreme Court came to a similar conclusion.

Lee Swislow, the executive director of GLAD, said each of the New England states has its own political landscape surrounding same-sex rights and the group's approach will be different in each one.

Vermont and New Hampshire have already legalized civil unions, and Massachusetts and Connecticut have taken a step further and now have same-sex marriage, she said. And there is encouraging news coming from the other states, she added.

Volunteers outside of polling places in Maine this month gathered 30,000 postcards from voters in support of same-sex marriage, Swislow said, when one-third of that number was the goal. And in Rhode Island, more than 400 people turned out Friday night for a protest against a decision on Election Day in California to ban same-sex marriage, she said.

"New Englanders have always had a live-and-let-live attitude," Swislow said. "So, we see the move toward marriage equality in line with those cultural values. And in general, New Englanders want to do the right thing."

Beth Robinson, the attorney who successfully argued the court case leading to Vermont civil unions, said Wednesday that the group she is a member of — Vermont Freedom to Marry — believes that 2009 is the year that lawmakers seriously consider same-sex marriages in the state.

Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced earlier this week that he would again sponsor a bill in support of same-sex marriage during the 2009 legislative session.

"This will be the year," Robinson said.

Robinson said she was disappointed that on Election Day voters in three states — California, Florida and Arizona — passed resolutions banning same-sex marriages, but she found some good news looking closely at the numbers.

When California voters approved a statutory change eight years ago against same-sex marriage, the split was a 22 percent difference, she said. Earlier this month, the split was a lot closer, with only a 4 percent difference, she said.

"That was a very close vote," she said. "The trajectory we see is in our favor."

The Green Mountain State, once home to numerous "Take Back Vermont" signs during the divisive debate over civil unions in the late 1990s and early 2000s, still has several active and prominent groups ready to organize to oppose lawmakers supporting same-sex marriage.

One of those groups is Take It to the People, which has been pushing for a statewide ballot question on the same-sex marriage question (a difficult proposition in Vermont to pull off compared to some other states).

President Craig Benson said he doesn't believe 2009 will be the year for same-sex marriage in Vermont. Almost every year since civil unions were legalized a legislator sponsors a same-sex marriage bill, he said, and it barely gets a hearing before the idea is shelved.

"If the Legislature knows what Vermonters want, than it probably won't waste its time and resources on issues like this and instead focus on the economy," Benson said.

If a same-sex marriage bill does gain traction in the Vermont Legislature, Benson said he and other groups will have an active presence at the Statehouse during the 2009 session.

"We've been pretty encouraged by what has been happening on the national scene," he said.

Robinson said she doesn't believe that debates over same-sex marriage could be derailed by the economic storm cloud covering the state. The committees of jurisdiction in this area — the House and Senate Judiciary committees — don't get involved in money talks, she said.

"This can really be seen as an opportunity to pass a law that makes a huge difference in the lives of Vermonters without spending a penny," Robinson said. "If anything, this could bring in more revenue for Vermont."

Contact Daniel Barlow at daniel.barlow@rutlandherald.com.








READER COMMENTS


You're right Just Me, words do have great value. I don't think this will be the last we hear about Marriage. The issues seem to be power and greed, not a desire to love anyone.
-- Posted by Sir Parley on Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 12:57 am EST

report this comment



Indeed, Civil Unions were a major victory for Vermont!
But now that Vermonters have seen that the new law has only done good, and no harm, it's time to think about civil rights in the bigger picture.

The more states accept civil marriage for all consenting adults, the more hope there will be to fix the federal DOMA ("Defense" of Marriage Act) which prohibits federal recognition of same-gender unions.

My friends would be able to travel across the river to Claremont and still have visitation rights for each other and their son if they had a car accident and had to go to an ER in New Hampshire. Other friends with high-risk pregnancies could give birth at Dartmouth Hitchcock (instead of traveling two hours to Burlington!) and still be able to put their partner on the Birth Certificate. Couples could chose to move to a new state for a new job without having to give up health care benefits. They could figure their taxes ONCE, not in two entirely different settings for state and federal purposes.

In the hearings on the subject of Marriage Equality in Vermont, people in favor outnumbered those opposed by a ratio of 20:1.

Giving equal rights to everyone does not affect those who already have those rights.

Vermonters can recognize this now, so what's the harm?
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 2:19 pm EST

report this comment



Same-sex couples in Vermont have had the right to enter into civil unions for years now. That was once a major victory; now, it is unsatisfactory evidence of inequality. All the same rights are now derided as "separate but equal, which is never equal." What more is needed? The word "marriage" itself. That is the only difference between what they have and what they want. It is only the word, not the rights or responsibilities that the word has traditionally represented.

If the word means that much, perhaps its meaning ought to be preserved.
-- Posted by Just Me on Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 10:56 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout