,¥.

ter ”gay marriage” one

more time, I'm going to
squeal like my sweet pet pig,
Babette. I mean really! This is
the worst case of ”please let us
be like you” since our palpita-
tions to get into the military.
Why are we fighting to become
included into an institution
which is obviously failing?
Most of my straight friends live
”in sin” because they see mar-
riage as the patriarchal dino-
saur it is. Many of my (former)
gay friends drone on inces-
santly about how beautiful the
world would be if only they
would let us ride the pretty di-
nosaur. I don't get it. Is our
need to be accepted so great
that we are reduced to plead-
ing for our rights to join the
club of governmentally-sanc-
tioned relationships?

I don't know about you,
but I don't need anyone, least
of all the same government
that denies my basic civil
rights, to tell me that my rela-
tion of 15—years is acceptable,
genuine, or holy to God or
Goddess. I don't want their
nose in my choice of family
structure, even if that nose
comes in the form of a mar-
riage license. What if I choose
not to couple? What if I choose
to marry three people? Are
these somehow less holy, less

I f I hear one more queer ut-

or, why Gay Marriage is a bad idea

OUT IN THE MOUNTAINS — SEPTEMBER 1997 — 11

What about
DOMA?

BY ENDORA
DISCLAIMER: This represents my own personal viewpoint, and
not that of any organization that has the poor taste of allowing itself to

be associated with me.

acceptable because my family
might not get it? Because Uncle
Sam says it's bad? It is a sad
day when we look to main-
stream heterosexual society to
validate our ways of forming
family. I believe that as a com-
munity, instead of fighting to
gain access to an institution
that discriminates, we should
be fighting against laws that
give one particular way of liv-
ing advantages over another.
Isn't that what diversity is all
about?

This is the worst case
of “please let us be
like you” since our
palpitations to get
into the military. Why
are we fighting to
become included into
an institution which
is obviously failing?

In her article last month
in Out In The Mountains. ”Faith
Matters and Marriage Mat-
ters”, Rev. Christine Leslie
spoke about what a powerful
event her "commitment cer-
emony had been. I'm sure it
was. As a clergy-person my-

self, I have performed dozens
of marriages and commitment

ceremonies, and they are
deeply meaningful and sin-
cerely moving. ...BUT. T00 of-
ten they are also rooted in
showing our straight families
that we can be good normal
people ”just like them” be-
cause, see we got married, too.
And although this might chip
away at social homophobia
among our families, it does so
by asserting, (read: desperately
trying to prove) that we are just
like they are and therefore de-
serve acceptance. Goddess for-
bid they be asked to accept
something really different.
They'd bust open from that
stretch. And the result of this
commitment ceremony cam-
paign has been that now in the
gay community, marriage is
the exalted and socially ap-
plauded norm.

OK. I concede that the
presents are tempting. As is
making our families squirm
when they have to give us the
same thing they gave our sib-
lings or admit they are
homophobic. Good sport. But
then we pour out in droves for
commitment ceremonies so
We, too, can celebrate how
mainstream and upstanding
we've become. Why? Why do
we do that? Friendship? Sup-
port? Yes, but doesn't it run a

DEMANDING, p14

‘I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

. 5.1.5.00,” .9

p ./ I

THE FREEDOM To MARRY: A or

This seventeen minute informational video was filmed entirely in Ver-
mont and features twentyr—two Vermonters talking about the issue of same
gender marriage. Hear voices from all over the state speaking about how
the inequality of marriage laws affects them, their friends, and family. Lis-
ten to you r neig h bors' personal stories and learn what rights and respon-
sibilities are denied same gender couples. N ow is the time to find out how
this issue affescts us all This video is a great way to introduce the topic with
non—gay friends and family. A

Placeyour pre-paid order today!
Your purchase will help educate others about same gender marriage.

'   i"’9_51éi'.P"<€: <si4~28      2. g     .

f ,$,;o.o  . .

  

 

 

rmail to__:’ if

$5.00 .su)g_g"e‘-sted ,clona_tio*n
totaflg slu»c«h];a‘de‘ ,

I .Sdare.$lsi?l.;-»  »

A l$.h§ln,e 

een Mountain View

  
    

 

  

 

 

 

 

IThefVermont .’IV\,a/ll/Tl'Y\lT.3Sl<‘. Force ’
PO Box 131j2,,Mi‘ddjlebury,  (05753?) V

_ a

 

BY CELLA CUDDY

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-199,
110. Stat. 2419 [1996]) was signed into law by President Clinton
at 12:50 am on September 21, 1996. The secretiveness suggested
by this middle-of-the-night signing stand in contrast to the very
public, and very combative, national debates about same sex
marriage that preceded the passage of DOMA.

As we continue to organize around this issue in Vermont,

I we need to be aware of the profound obstacles that DOMA pre-

sents to any legal, equal status marriage for queers. The effect
of DOMA is that regardless of what our judges decide, what
our representatives legislate, or what we as citizens vote in any
referendum, it will be impossible for same sex couples to access
the full range of benefits and responsibilities provided to het-
erosexual couples: heterosexist discrimination will remain in-
tact.

DOMA (subtitled ”An act to define and protect the insti-
tution of marriage”) is actually a tiny law with only two short
sections. The first section mandates that no state will be bound
to recognize as a marriage any same sex marriage that may be
performed in any other state. In the Congressional debates, this
section was framed as a necessary shoring up defenses against
activist judges and extremist lawyers trying to inflict gay-toler-
ant sensibilities on the entire country.

DOMA supporters made reference to the Full Faith and
Credit Clause of the Constitution in discussing the first section.
In this passage of the constitution states are required to fully
recognize the laws of other states in ways to be decided by Con-
gress. Full Faith has been evoked, for example, in requiring states
to respect restraining orders against abuse or child custody judg-
ments of other states. In DOMA, however, a new interpretation
of this passage was presented: that Congress could decide that
the effect of one state's laws on another state's could be ”no
effect.” This interpretation is completely unprecedented and
untested in courts. In the 200 year history of the Constitution,
Full Faith has always been evoked to implement laws among
states, not disregard them. But here, DOMA allows that mar-
riage laws of one state can be ignored by another.

Marriage laws do differ among states in terms of ages of
consent as well as permissible degrees of relationship. This oc-
curs because of the Public Policy Clause of the Restatement (Sec-
ond) of Conflicts of Law Act (Sec. 283 [2[). This act makes the
provision that if respecting the law of one state would violate
”the strong public policy” of another state, that law can be dis-
regarded. What this means is that prior to DOMA, if the fine
citizens, judges, and legislators of Vermont had legalized same
sex marriages, and this really pissed off the fine citizens of New
Hampshire (as reflected by public referendum, state laws, or
judgments against queer marriages), then New Hampshire could
have ignored our marriages, but we would have remained just
as married in Vermont. In other words, this section of DOMA
was completely unnecessary in any legal sense, and could well
be seen as a transparent political move to inflame anti—gay sen-
timents in an election year (DOMA was debated and passed dur-
ing the final months of the 1996 election). ‘

The second section of DOMA defines marriage for the pur-
poses of federal benefits, acts, laws and programs. Here, mar-
riage, is clearly defined as the union of a man and a woman.
This section stands as an unprecedented federal intervention
into what had been previously seen as the responsibility of the
states. Prior to DOMA, the federal government left it up to in-
dividual states to define marriage. Whatever the state's defini-
tion was, the federal government would respect that and pro-
vide marriage-related benefits accordingly. For the first time in
US history, DOMA serves to create a federal definition of mar-
riage. Regardless of what we do in this state, regardless of any
legal or judicial recognition of same sex marriage that may come
to pass, our access to benefits and supports are severely re-
stricted. DOMA means that even if Vermont declares that our
marriages are legal, we have no legal entitlement to our spouses’
social security or veteran's benefits. We will not be able to file
joint tax returns. We will not have access to accelerated status
in immigration proceedings if one of us is not a US citizen. In
federal court, we will not have the privileges of confidentiality
afforded between different-sex spouses for matters of testimony.
Our children will not be known as our children, with profound
implications for‘interstate custody and support proceedings. We
will not be presumed to be the beneficiaries of our spouse's es-
tate. The benefits given to, and responsibilities respected of,
”spouses” are referenced thousands of times in federal programs
and laws. We will have access to none of these.

THE LOWDOWN, p14‘ ’