As of December 20, 1999 the state of Vermont has opened the door for same-sex unions (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1999). Basically, Vermont has decided that same-sex couples must be given the same rights as opposite-sex married couples. The Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that denying same-sex couples the same rights and protections as opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional and inhumane (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1999). Therefore, the Court ordered the legislature to draw up a plan that would offer exactly the same benefits and rights to same-sex couples, as opposite-sex couples are afforded. The legislature did as the Court said and decided on the label of civil union. Civil union provides same-sex couples with the same benefits as opposite-sex married couples, such as inheritance rights, tax privileges, medical decisions, and so on (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1999). Vermont issues county licenses to these partners and they are recognized in the eyes of the state.
The passing of civil union required changing over 300 statutes in Vermont (Gender Talk Radio, 2000). Every statute that expressed anything to do with marriage, now also states civil union as well. With civil union, same-sex couples get their protection and benefits, as opposite-sex couples get to keep their marriage word. Bill Lippert, Vermont state representative and vice chair of the house judiciary committee, is the only openly gay member of the state house of representatives and was interviewed by Gender Talk Radio. Lippert was an advocate for same-sex marriage when it was brought in front of the Vermont Court and pushed the committee to incorporate the word ‘marriage’. However, he claims to be happy that benefits would finally be afforded to same-sex couples, even if it isn’t called marriage (Gender Talk Radio, 2000). Even though the state of Vermont recognizes the civil union of same-sex partners, it is still too early to know whether or not other states will recognize the unions.
CONCLUSION:
Vermont is the first to ever legalize marriage benefits to same-sex couples. What society fails to see is that the argument to legalize same-sex marriage is invalid mainly because it is already legal. Each individual person interprets the law differently and may do so. Through my research I believe same-sex marriage is legal due to Supreme Court opinions, Full Faith and Credit Clause, and most importantly our Constitution. It should no longer be an argument on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized, but rather, should it be recognized by the law. Under our constitution, every law abiding citizen must receive equal protection under the law. This means that America can not simply deny rights based on sexual orientation because it violates equal protection.
The Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of equal protection and as such is unconstitutional. According to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, all of the states must recognize a license valid in one state as valid in theirs. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that marriage is a fundamental right and that discrimination by classes is unconstitutional. However, as Americans we continue to contradict ourselves through our laws. Our nation was built and has always been based on the fundamental principles of freedom expressed in the Declaration of Independence and through our Constitution.
The opponents of homosexual marriage need to remember what freedom means to America and understand the significance of setting a precedent that denies that freedom. Any African-American should understand the importance of upholding the fundamental beliefs on which America was based. It was these fundamental beliefs that abolished slavery, and called for equal rights. Any woman should understand the importance of upholding these fundamental beliefs. It was these beliefs that have worked toward ending woman?s suffrage. Any parent, any working man, any American, should understand the importance of our fundamental beliefs. Without them, there is a never-endeding list of atrocities that could be committed: cruel and unusual punishment, sweatshop labor, unsafe work standards, unfair work practices, and on and on. To deny any one of our beliefs even once, sets a precedent for them to be denied again and again, to anyone. Without our constitutional rights, America simply would not be the free nation that it is today.
American Civil Liberties Union. (1998). Gay marriage: Should lesbian and gay couples be
allowed to marry? Retrieved November 9, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.aclu.org/library/aagaymarriage.html
American Civil Liberties Union. (1996). The right of gays and lesbians to marry: Memorandum.
Retrieved November 9, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.aclu.org/congress/gaywed.html
Bartels, L. (2000, May 27). Gay Marriage Ban Signed: Colorado Becomes 33rd State to Ok
Exclusion; Activist Blast Bill. Denver Rocky Mountain News, pp.5A.
Clapp, J.E. (Ed.). (1996). Random House Webster’s legal dictionary. New York: Random House.
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, No. 72-777 (U.S. filed Oct. 15, 1973). Retrieved
November 12, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.smultron.com/us_court.htm
Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, S.3396, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1996). Retrieved November
12, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:2:./temp/~c104i7ciuj::
Ettlebrick, P.L. (1997). Since when is marriage a path to liberation? In R.M. Baird &
S.E. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Same-sex marriage: The moral and legal debate (pp. 164-168).
Amherst: Prometheus.
Gender Talk Web Radio. (2000). Interview with Bill Lippert: Program 251. Retrieved November
13, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.gendertalk.com/real/251/gt251.shtml
Griswold v. Connecticut, No. 496 (U.S. filed Mar. 29, 1965). Retrieved
November 12, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.smultron.com/us_court.htm
Kersch, K.I. (1996). Full faith and credit for same-sex marriages? Political Science Quarterly,
112, 117-136.
Kramer, L. (1997). Same-sex marriage, conflict of laws, and the unconstitutional public policy
exception. Yale Law Journal, 106, 1965-2008.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (1999). Vermont begins to pave the way for fairness for
same-sex couples. Retrieved November 9, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ngltf.org/news/release.cfm?releaseID=254
Newsum, D. (2000, April 28). Abuse of Power in Colorado. Denver Post, pp. B9.
Partner Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples. (2000). Marriage benefits list.
Retrieved November 9, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-list.html
Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples. (1999). Legal marriage court cases: A
timeline. Retrieved November 18, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/t-line-1-html
Policy. Com. (1999). Issue of the week: Same-sex marriage. Retrieved November 12, 2000 from
the World Wide Web:
http://www.policy.com/issuewk/1999/0621_78/detail529.html
Romer v. Evans, No. 94-1039 (U.S. filed Oct. 10, 1995). Retrieved
November 12, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.smultron.com/us_court.htm
Sullivan, A. (1997). Hawaiian aye: Nearing the alter on gay marriage. In R.M. Baird &
S.E. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Same-sex marriage: The moral and legal debate (pp. 164-168).
Amherst: Prometheus.
Zablocki v. Redhail, No. 76-879 (U.S. filed Oct. 4, 1977). Retrieved
November 12, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.smultron.com/us_court.htm