The Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force prepared a 17-minute informational video ₃ called "The Freedom to Marry: A Green Mountain View". 22 Vermonters talk about how discrimination in marriage laws affects their friends and families.

The Lambda Legal Defense and Education has prepared a partial list of special rights, privileges and responsibilities which are available only to heterosexual couples in the US.

The "Baker v. Vermont" case before the Chittenden Superior Court:

On 1997-JUL-22, three same-gendered couples in the state of Vermont sued the state, as well as the towns of Shelburne, South Burlington and Milton VT. Their goal is to obtain marriage licenses and to have their subsequent marriages recognized by the state. The couples were Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan (in a committed relationship for 4 years); Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles (7 year relationship; raising a family); and Lois Farnham and Holly Puterbaugh (together for 25 years; they have one daughter). The case is "Baker v. Vermont;" it was filed on 1997-JUL-22.

Their lawyers, Susan Murray and Beth Robinson from the legal firm of Langrock, Sperry & Wool in Middlebury VT stated that:

"...the refusal to allow our clients to marry violates both state marriage laws and the state Constitution, which require that all citizens and families have the same access to the legal protections and obligations of civil marriage...Marriage is a fundamental, individual, personal choice, which should be available to all Vermonters."

The co-counsel, Mary Bonauto, from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders added that

"... married couples receive over 150 supports and protections under Vermont law which are not available to gay and lesbian couples, no matter how long they have been together, no matter how committed their relationship is, and no matter how much they need those legal protections."

Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project commented:

"Given that the status of the Hawaii suit is in some state of turmoil, a lawsuit in another state with a good chance of winning makes a great deal of sense...It fortifies the national battle for marriage rights." ₃

In a lengthy filing (108 pages) the plaintiffs' lawyers stress that marriage is a fundamental human right, a foundational component of society, and should not be denied to gays or lesbians. "This case involves one of the most fundamental of all our human and civil rights: the right to marry the person we love, the person with whom we want to share our lives." The submission compared the Vermont attorney general's position as similar to that of the 1966 Virginia Supreme Court, which upheld a state law against interracial marriage. In a rather ironically named case, Loving v. Virginia, the court claimed that it was up to the legislature, not the courts, to change the law. The filing stated:

"The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overturned laws outlawing interracial marriage. The couples' case boils down to the simple belief that society has changed and banning same-sex marriage is no longer reasonable...In light of the changing social mores in the state of Vermont, it would be unjust and unreasonable to construe Vermont's marriage statutes to exclude same-sex couples." ₄

Their suit was naturally opposed by the Attorney General's office. They maintained that many of the statutory benefits that the plaintiffs wish to obtain through marriage can already be obtained through private contracts. They also claimed that "Vermont's history and traditions do not support including same-sex unions within the fundamental right to marriage...Marriage in this state has always been composed of one man and one woman." They cited seven arguments against same-sex marriage and asked that the suit be dismissed. The state claimed that they have an interest in giving special privileges to heterosexual couples, because it:

1. Unites men and women to "bridge their differences";
2. Promotes a [family] setting which provides both male and female role models;
3. Preserves the "time honored" institution of marriage;
4. Ensures that Vermont marriages are recognized in other states;
5. Preserves the Legislature's authority to channel behavior and make normative statements;
6. Minimizes the use of modern fertility treatments in order to avoid increased child custody and visitation disputes; and
7. Furthers the link between procreation and childrearing. 

Chittenden Superior Court Judge Linda Levitt described arguments 1 to 6 as invalid, speculative, difficult to grasp, or "without common sense or logical basis." But she accepted point 7. She dismissed the suit on that basis.

Plaintiffs Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles commented. 

"Gay and lesbian individuals and couples, like us, have children.  We share the State's concern for promoting stable homes for children. That's why we wanted to marry."

The plaintiffs appealed the case to the Vermont Supreme Court.

WARNING: Author's personal opinions:

We normally try to keep our personal thoughts out of our web site and remain objective. However, some times we cannot resist. The following are our subjective opinions on the Attorney General's arguments:

1. Unites men and women: Most same-sex couples who wish to marry cannot form committed loving marital relationships with members of the opposite-sex. Since they cannot be united with members of the opposite sex anyway, the questions remains whether the state should recognize their same-sex relationships.
2. Male and female role models: This is a key factor, particularly among religious and social conservatives who feel that parenting by both a man and a woman is vitally important to the mental and emotional health of their children. However, this belief is not held by everyone in society. Should the government promote one of many beliefs concerning gender?
3. "Time honored" institution of marriage: Human slavery was also a time honored institution.
4. Recognition of Vermont marriages in other states: Other states are required by the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution to recognize Vermont opposite-sex marriages.
5. Legislature channeling behavior and make normative statements: Most loving committed bonds between adults are opposite-sex relationships. Does the state have the right to promote uniformity at the expense of the elementary human rights of same-sex couples?
6. Minimizes the use of modern fertility treatments: The state can reduce the level of fertility treatments by any number of arbitrary means other than reducing the rights of same-sex couples: -- e.g. banning blonds or those under 35 years-of-age from seeking treatment. None of these make sense.
7. Link between procreation and childrearing: Many couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, form committed relationships and raise children. Many same-sex couples have and/or raise children. In fact, two of the three plaintiff couples have children. Meanwhile, many heterosexual couples remain childless. Yet nobody talks of invalidating a man and women's marriage because they are childless.

We find no merit in any of the Attorney General's arguments.

Comments by Some of the Plaintiffs:

References:

1. Kerry Lobel, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "Vermont Marriage Case," 1997-JUL-25. Available at: http://www.ngltf.org/vtmarr.html
2. The full text of the Marriage Resolution is at: http://www.ftm.org/action/resolution.html
3. "Gay Marriage Battle Erupts in Vermont," American Civil Liberties Union, at: http://www.aclu.org/news/w072597a.html
4. "Judge Dismisses Vermont Gay Marriage Suit," http://www.vtpride.org/jan98/marrysty.htm

Copyright © 1998 to 2007 Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Last updated: 2007-AUG-26
Author: B.A. Robinson