Vermont Passes Gay Marriage: How Far We've Come
Posted

Madeleine Kunin

from Chelsea Green.

Right after the Vermont legislature voted (100 to 49, precisely the 2/3 needed) to over-ride Governor Jim Douglas' veto this morning of a law permitting gay marriage, my daughter got a text message, "Yeah, Vermont!"

She was not the only one cheering when the vote was announced. I felt an elation that surprised me. These men and women in the legislature are not professional politicians; they are citizen legislators representing small districts where voters know who they are, meet them at the general store chat with them at the gas station. The grass roots support that was evident in today's vote signifies strong support for equal rights for our gay and lesbian relatives, friends and neighbors to a degree that has not happened before.

Vermont is the fourth state to enact gay marriage but it is the first state to do so by a vote of the legislature. The three others (Iowa, most recently) did so only as a result of narrow decisions by their state Supreme Courts.

I cannot help but think how far we have come in such a short time to guarantee respect to gay and lesbian Americans. I remember when I was in my second term as Governor I was the only politician to speak at one of the first gay pride parades in Burlington. I stood on steps of the Unitarian church under a broad banner that said "Gay Pride." The newspaper made certain that both my photo and the banner fit into the picture that was featured on the front page the next day. I later learned that that photo was scotch taped to several cash registers in stores with a red circle and a red slash.

Almost ten years ago Vermont was the first state to enact a law that permitted civil unions, by a margin of one vote. The fact that this law was enacted by two-thirds of the legislators is one indicator of how much has changed. At that time, a dozen legislators who voted for the law lost their seats in the next election. There was a severe back lash, complete with yard signs that read, "Take Back Vermont."

In the public hearings held in 2000 many Vermonters learned for the first time that gay and lesbian Vermonters were their neighbors, not simply "the other." This time, we learned that they are worthy of full citizenship. Not every gay or lesbian person will want to get married, but every gay and lesbian person can feel a little more safe, experience a little more dignity, and most important of all, feel proud—proud not only for themselves (gay pride), but for the citizens of this small state which has had the good sense to do the right thing.

----------------

Gay Families in America’s Heartland Buoyed by Iowa Decision
by Kilian Melloy
EDGE Contributor
Monday Apr 6, 2009

Marriage equality is no longer a phenomenon restricted to the coasts: with the finding of Iowa’s Supreme Court that a 1998 state law barring marriage for sex-sex couples violates the state’s constitution, full fledged marriage for gay and lesbian families--at least on the state level--has come to the heartland.

For some, that is the very definition of America’s promise of freedom, liberty, and opportunity. For others, it’s a clarion call to redouble efforts to curtail marriage rights by enshrining anti-gay provisions in state constitutions before they can be gained either through the courts, as has happened in every state in which marriage equality has become legal, or through legislative action, as the state of Vermont is on the edge of accomplishing--though Vermont’s Republican governor has vowed a veto.

Across the river from Iowa, in Nebraska, gay and lesbian families look toward a state that has extended a hand of welcome, and of full equality before the law, and some contemplate a move across state lines for the sake of their families, according to an April 5 article in the Omaha World Herald.

Others hope that won’t be necessary: they would rather that equality came to them.

Some might pursue a mixed strategy, as Donna Colley and Margaux Towne-Colley did even before the first legal marriages for America’s gay and lesbian families took place five years ago in Massachusetts. Once civil unions became possible in Vermont, the couple traveled there for a ceremony of their own, even though it brought them no legal benefits back home, reported another World Herald article on April 5.

The article quoted Towne-Colley as saying, "It’s ingrained in us from childhood that when you love someone, you want to marry them."

For that reason, and legalities aside, the ceremony carried enormous meaning to their family. Said Towne-Colley, "It’s still something tangible to us."

The first article quoted Nebraska couple Troy Fienhold-Haasis and Jason Fienhold-Haasis, who married in Canada--again, despite knowing that their union would not enjoy legal recognition in the state the couple, originally from Iowa, now call home.

But with the state they hail from now offering their family legal protections and obligations, the two are thinking about a return to Iowa, the article said.

The article quoted Troy Fienhold-Haasis as saying, "With the ruling, it’s a huge reason to move across the river."

Even if couples don’t relocate, many are likely to head to Iowa for a marriage ceremony, even if they can’t bring that legal status across state lines. They are driven by the same need for family, and the celebration and recognition of that family they have long been denied, that took couples far afield to Vermont and Canada; now, with Iowa granting same-sex couples marriage equality, they won’t have so far to go. Indeed, there are already predictions that Iowa will enjoy something of an economic upturn as couples flock there to wed.

Just across another state border lies Iowa’s neighbor Minnesota, where, according to an April 5 article at Eleventh Avenue South, advocates of marriage equality are reluctant to consider bringing a challenge to the courts similar to the ones that earned gay and lesbian families the legal right to wed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and, until a slim majority of voters took the right to marry away from gay and lesbian families there, California.

A spokesperson for Minnesota GLBT rights group OutFront, Amy Johnson, was quoted in the article as saying, "This powerful ruling from our neighbor to the south will have a positive effect on the conversation regarding marriage equality in Minnesota."

Added Johnson, "Travel east or west, and you run into states with constitutional prohibitions on all forms of legal recognition for our families. Travel north or south, and you run into jurisdictions with full marriage equality.

"We at OutFront Minnesota believe that our neighbors will see that Canada and Iowa have provided us the better example of how to address the legal issues faced by same-sex couples and their families."

However, added Johnson, the state’s route to equality before the law for gay and lesbian families is likely to differ: "We believe Minnesota’s past negative court rulings make clear that the best route to full marriage equality runs through the legislature and governor, and not through the courts."

Indeed, there may be some momentum building in the Minnesota state government: the article quoted Democratic state Rep. Ryan Winkler as saying, "Minnesotans are proud of our tradition of fairness and decency. We value equal rights and oppose discrimination in all forms--but we are not free of it.

"Some Minnesotans have fewer rights than others, which is why the issue of marriage equality has become a leading issue.

"It’s crucial that we have open public discussion about same sex marriage in Minnesota," added the state Representative, going on to say, "We’re having that debate in the legislature."

Indeed, state Rep. Winkler is himself a leader in the effort for equality for all of Minnesota’s families. "Several weeks ago I introduced a bill requiring the State of Minnesota to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states," said Winkler.

"The bill does not require same-sex marriage in Minnesota, but acknowledges that other states have done so. Other bills would use a variety approaches to address same-sex marriage and domestic partner benefits."

Such a policy is already in effect in New York, a state that does not offer marriage equality itself, but where gay and lesbian families married elsewhere have their unions respected.

In Kansas, where a constitutional amendment approved by voters made discrimination against gay families part of the state’s legal fabric, no immediate change was anticipated.

A Kansas City Star article published April 3 quoted Kansas Equality Coalition lobbyist Thomas Witt as saying, "I don’t see much" chance of an "immediate impact," while University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law professor Douglas O. Linder voiced doubts that Kansas courts would be liable to view the legal issue in a manner sympathetic to gay and lesbian families--certainly not to the extent of declaring the anti-gay language in the Kansas constitution invalid.

In Wisconsin, marriage equality is denied to families living in that state under anti-gay language enshrined in the state constitution, but there is hope that same-sex families might secure some measure of protection through domestic partnerships.

An article appearing on April 6 in the Madison newspaper the Capital-Times quoted GLBT advocacy group Fair Wisconsin as noting, "While our state constitution prohibits same-sex marriage in Wisconsin, Wisconsinites overwhelmingly share a commitment to fairness and decency for all couples.

"That is why we strongly support the domestic partnerships that are part of Governor Doyle’s budget."

The newspaper published an editorial calling for the end to marriage discrimination and hailing the domestic partnership proposal.

Noted the paper’s editorial, "The state should not get in the way of loving couples who want to marry. But in Wisconsin, it does.

"Until that cruel form of discrimination is eliminated in our state, as it has been in Iowa, we should ease the burdens of those couples by providing for domestic partnerships," the editorial added.

In Illinois, Democratic state Rep. Greg Harris hailed Iowa’s embrace of marriage equality as evidence of "the values of basic fairness... spreading from state to state," according to an April 4 article at Newsmax.

Doing his part to promote that tide of equality, Harris, who is openly gay, has brought a bill to provide Illinois families with domestic partnerships to the state’s House of Representatives.

Even in Southern states, the jump marriage equality has made to America’s heartland signifies that major changes may be coming.

The article said that the leader of the Tennessee Equality Project, Chris Sanders, foresaw gay and lesbian Southern families heading to Iowa to say their vows and then returning home to insist that their unions be honored at home.

Sanders reckoned that the Iowa finding would "contribute is a critical mass of states will move to support marriage equality and eventually the federal courts will have to take up this matter."

And in Missouri, GLBT family rights proponents took the occasion of marriage equality being offered in Iowa to point out that the issue is not necessarily one embraced only by liberals.

The executive director of Missouri GLBT advocacy group PROMO, A. J. Bockelman, was quoted in an April 3 story in The Missourian as saying, "The fact that Iowa is right next door to Missouri shows that marriage equality is not just a coastal phenomenon."

Allies in Action president Lance Pierce was also cited in the article as noting that the court’s decision had less to do with politics and more to do with a strict analysis of the law and whether it measured up to constitutional standards.

Pierce called the anti-gay law that the Iowa court struck down "a clear case of discrimination."

The optimism voiced by proponents of gay and lesbian family equality was matched by those who oppose marriage equality. To wishing to reserve marriage as a special right for heterosexuals, Iowa’s recognition of marriages between same sex couples serves as a rallying cry.

Critics of the Iowa Supreme Court spoke out, with the Kansas City Star quoting a leader in the Missouri effort to incorporate anti-gay language into that state’s constitution, Vicky Hartzler, as saying, "This judicial activism is a perfect example of why we took these steps in 2004 to protect our marriage here in Missouri."

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund was cited by the article, which quoted its senior legal counsel, Douglas Napier, as saying, "This will catapult all of those states forward in the marriage amendment process."

Implying that the Iowa Supreme Court had acted improperly, Napier added, "I think they’re going to work hard to get it on their constitution before another renegade court goes out and creates new law."

The Florida lawyer credited with spearheading the successful push to write anti-gay marriage into the constitution of that state, John Stemberger, also adopted the language of right-wing pundits who have attempted to paint courts that find against unconstitutional infringements of family rights targeting gays as "activist."

Said Stemberger of the Iowa court’s finding, "It’s a classic example at why we in Florida amended our state constitution--to protect it from judges who would not seek to appreciate their limited and restrained role as a jurist."

The article also quoted one of the leaders behind the campaign to pass the anti-gay family amendment to the California constitution, Andy Pugno, who opined that, "Iowa’s decision looks almost exactly like last year’s narrow decision of the California court when it was interpreting a mere statute in light of constitutional principles."

Indeed, the revocation of marriage rights in California after the most expensive and hard-fought campaign of its kind on American history have led to speculation that a similarly divisive and bruising campaign might take place in Iowa--and might lead to families there seeing their rights, too, stripped away.

Such an outcome is viewed as unlikely, though with the next possibility for putting a Proposition 8-style measure before Iowa voters to constitutionally disenfranchise gay and lesbian families being over three years away, in 2012, opponents of family equality have time to organize and raise the funds they would need to launch an assault against gay and lesbian family parity in the newest state to offer it.

So, however, do groups dedicated to preserving family equality and protecting Iowa’s newly legal marriages. Gay and lesbian families and their advocates, having learned hard lessons from Proposition 8, are not likely to be sanguine about any attempt to rewrite the Iowa constitution in a manner that revokes their rights.

-------------------

Iowa Court Upholds Right to Same sex marriage; lawmakers say they will not seek to overturn

DES MOINES — Same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in Iowa by month’s end, after a ruling on Friday by the Iowa Supreme Court that found unconstitutional a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

The unanimous decision moved the heated battle over same-sex marriage beyond the East and West Coasts to the nation’s middle. Only Massachusetts and Connecticut now allow same-sex marriages, while California permitted them for about six months before voters approved a ban in November.

“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” Justice Mark S. Cady wrote for the seven-member court, adding later, “We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage pledged to fight the outcome, but acknowledged that there appeared to be no immediate way to undo it. The only avenue would be a constitutional amendment, but under Iowa law that process would take at least two years.

Members of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, spoke with state lawmakers after the ruling in hopes of jump-starting the amendment process.

“A court decision doesn’t change what’s right and what’s wrong,” said Bryan English, a spokesman for the group.

But there was no indication that the Legislature, controlled by Democrats, would take up the matter.

Meanwhile, the ruling set off celebrations among same-sex couples, many of whom had gathered at a hotel here to await word. They wept, embraced, laughed, and wept some more.

“I think there’s been a perception that it couldn’t happen here,” David Twombley, 67, said, moments after he learned that he and his partner could marry. The couple was among six Iowa couples to start the legal fight four years ago that culminated in Friday’s decision.

“But yes, it happened, right here in Iowa,” Mr. Twombley said. “There’s something about that, about it happening in the heartland, that has got to accelerate this process for the whole country.”

Same-sex marriages could take place in counties here starting in three weeks, when the ruling becomes final, lawyers said. There is no requirement that people seeking marriage licenses prove they live in Iowa, so the doors will be open to same-sex couples from other states.

“Go get married!” Dennis W. Johnson, a lawyer from Des Moines who had helped represent the gay and lesbian couples in the case, told the gathering at the hotel. “Live happily ever after,” Mr. Johnson called out, adding, “Live the American dream.”

Opponents of the decision said they believed it would awaken enormous backlash here and throughout the Midwest once people understood what had happened.

Along the streets of this city in the hours after the ruling, people expressed mixed views of the matter, though nearly all said they were surprised — happily so, in some cases, but less so for others — at what the court had concluded.

On at least one talk-radio show, residents were enraged.

“I’m almost ready to up and leave Iowa and move back to Minnesota,” one woman said angrily.

Within hours of the decision, the representatives of the Iowa Family Policy Center left the Supreme Court building here, and sought out state lawmakers in the State Capitol building just down the street.

Unlike some states that have barred the marriages with voter-led ballot measures, voters here cannot directly initiate constitutional amendments. Instead, an amendment would require approval by state lawmakers during two legislative sessions, and then approval by voters at the ballot box. That means the earliest a prospective ban could take effect would be 2012.

Opponents of same-sex marriages want state lawmakers, who are a few weeks from finishing their annual legislative session, to begin the process now. But the idea seemed to have no backing among legislative leaders; both chambers here are controlled by Democrats.