established 1986 Vol. XX. No. 9 OCTOBER 2005 ,

editorial

anks to serious and extensive
grassroots organizing by
MassEquality and other pro—mar-

legislature, sitting as a Constitutional _

proposed constitutional amendment that
would have banned same—sex marriage
while providing ‘
civil unions. The
vote was 157-39.

That was the
same measure
that had passed
last year’s

MassEquality, a

coalition of pro-marriage equality
groups, helped build the prevailing
majority in part by working hard during
last November’s elections: all of the leg-
islators facing contests who opposed the
amendment last time were re—elected,
sometimes by substantial margins; and
of the 18 newly elected legislators vot-

ing on the issue for the first time, 16

voted against the marriage ban.

And while 42 of those voting to
defeat the amendment did so because
they opposed its provision of civil
unions, 115 members of the majority
were voting for equality, or at least
against writing discrimination into our
neighbor—state’s constitution.

The struggle wasn’t cheap and it .isn’t
over. By its own estimate, MassEquality
alone spent $700,000 to support its leg-
islative allies and to help pro-equality
candidates get elected. Hundreds of mar-
riage—equality volunteers went door-to-
door, held fundraisers, and stuffed
envelopes for candidates to achieve
those victories. Activists connected leg-

, islators with newlywed gay and lesbian

couples who would talk about what their
marriages meant to them. Same-sex mar-
riage stopped being about ‘those people’
and started being about ‘my con-
stituents’ and ‘my neighbors.’ A
Organizations from across the state

riage equality groups, the Massachusetts‘ .'

Convention on September 14, defeated a.

Here in Vermont,
we applaud the
Massachusetts  

— including labor, religious groups, eth-
nic associations, professional associa-
tions, healthcare providers, and political
groups — became allies and affiliates
who spoke out publicly in favor of mar-
riage equality. They mobilized their own
volunteers to contact legislators and to
hand out fliers and speak to people at
every imaginable
public venue.

And on
September 14, all
that work resulted
in a vote for equal-
ity and against

ConCon by a vote  bigotry.

of 105 to 92. If it ~ Being right is
had passed this    not enough,
round of voting, _ though it ought to
the proposed for marriage be.

amendment ‘ . There is still
would have    the specter of a
appeared on bal- citizens’ petition
lots in the   effort, which
November 2006 . V “ u " would ban same-
election. _     sexmarriage, peri-

Here’s the . od. If the anti-gay

wonky stuff.    forces succeed in

getting the

required number of valid signatures, and
then convince 25 percent of the legisla-
ture (just 50 representatives and sena-
tors) to vote for it, the measure would
appear on the ballot in 2008.

And from now until then, several
thousand lesbian and gay couples will
get married — not joined in civil union,
but married — and the sky will not fall,
the divorce rate will not surge, lifewill
go on, children will go to school 

Here in Vermont, we applaud the
Massachusetts legislator—de1egates who
stood for marriage equality. And we
wonder when we will get it here at
home.

Last month, a legislator I would con-
sider an ally contacted me at home via
email. She asked whether I knew of any
couples who would participate in a press
conference with supportive legislators to
urge the federal government to extend
marriage benefits to couples .with civil
unions.

That’s one solution. But I’m practical
enough not to hold my breath waiting
for it to happen. Personally I think all
non-religious unions -— regardless of the
gender of the partners — should be civil
unions. I like that my civil union is not a
marriage and doesn’t carry all that emo-
tional and historical baggage.

What I don’t like is that my spouse

We Win! (For Now...

pays taxes to the federal government for
the health insurance benefit that covers
me. I don’t like that we have to figure -
our federal taxes twice in order to pay
our state taxes — and give our work-
sheets to the state + when straight_cou—
ples don’t. I don’t like that if one of us
ends up in a hospital outside Vermont,
the other one might not be included in
decisions about care or even allowed in
the room. And if one of us in an out—of-
state hospital dies, the other one might
not be allowed to claim the other’s body
for cremation or burial. I don’t like that
if she dies before I do, I have no access
to her social security survivor benefits,
which will be higher than mine.
So, although I agreed with the‘legisla—

tor, at first I wondered what realistic

.political goal such a press conference

would serve. Is it to head off a coming
push for marriage equality in Vermont?
Is it a solid show of support or one with-
out substance? —
The legislator assured me the lette
that would be written to Congress and
the press conference that would be held

I to publicize it are entirely sincere. The

idea has been floating since June, but
was overtaken by the end—of-session
rush, healthcare, summer study commit-
tees, and so on. If the goal is equal
rights, the more avenues we take toward
getting there, the better chances we have
of getting those rights. And if nothing
else, such a letter would publicize why
civil unions are separate and unequal.
But whether you believe in marriage

as an institution, or civil unions are just
fine, it seems -clear that achieving mar-
riage equality carries a symbolic weight
that could tip the balance away from
hate and fear. And without the term
“marriage,” we don’t even get a seat in
the courtroom to argue for our own
equality. V

 

Euan Bear