Vermont task force on same-sex marriage

Gay-marriage committee begins work; opponents boycott meeting
1:20 p.m.
August 23, 2007

By DANIEL BARLOW
Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER – With little fanfare or fireworks, a legislative committee charged with exploring the possibility of expanding marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples cautiously began its work Thursday morning.

Tom Little, the Shelburne Republican chairing the commission, steered the other eight members present at the meeting toward deciding basic guidelines for the proceedings, such as the format of its upcoming public hearings and what historical information members and Vermonters may need. [Little is also an Episcopalian.]

Little, who oversaw the writing of the state’s historic civil union law in the Vermont House seven years ago, said he wants to get the commission out before residents to hear their thoughts as soon as possible.

“I don’t think we’ll ever be fully ready,” he said at the end of the first meeting of the 11-member Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection. “But we need to get out there and get our feet wet even if we aren’t ready.”

Meanwhile, same-sex marriage opponents announced at the Statehouse that they will be boycotting the committee’s upcoming slate of public hearings because they believe the members have already decided to endorse gay marriage.

Stephen Cable, the president of Vermont Renewal, said he is worried that allowing gay marriage would lead to group marriages or recognition of incestuous relationships. He called out Democrats in the Vermont Legislature to scrap the committee and form a new one “under bipartisan management.”

“As a result of their actions and refusal to address the issues we have raised, we are asking Vermonters to boycott the hearings and pay no attention to the report,” Cable said.

But despite the strong words there was little to suggest at the opening meeting of the historic commission that the issue of gay marriage would be as contentious as it was when the state passed civil union legislation in 2000.

There were no “take back Vermont” signs and very few, if any, activists on either side of the issue observing the proceedings to be seen. Most of those in attendance Thursday morning were members of the state’s media.

+

Also cited in the news report is another member of the opposition saying that this is a kangaroo court and people opposed to gay marriage should boycott the meetings because it's the left talking to the far left.

Given that Vermont already has civil unions, and there's no way we are going back, does it make sense to have someone opposed to same-sex marriages to be on this commission? I really don't think so. We're past this point of discussion. We're not going back; it's time to go forward.

For really accurate portrayal of what we went through in 1999-2000, go read Pulitzer-prize winner David Moat's Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage (Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 2004). He really gets it.

Compa and I were at the 25 January 2000 hearing (pages 164ff). A friend had reserved us seats on the floor of the House chamber, which was a good thing, since it was packed. Before entering, we were able to put our names into a box from which speakers would be selected. Imagine my surprise when, in the second or third (?) hour mine was drawn. Whatever I said is long lost to history, but it was broadcast, along with everyone else's words on Vermont Public Radio, such that when I arrived in church on Sunday, a few people said they had heard me on the radio.

I wrote in our parish newsletter in March 2000:

Some of you may be aware that I was one of the 110 Vermonters whose name was picked out of the hat to testify at the State House on Tuesday, 25 January at the House Judiciary’s Hearing on how the Legislature should respond to the December ruling of the Vermont Supreme Court in Baker vs. the State of Vermont. Attending that hearing was a remarkable experience—one worth reflecting on and sharing.

Despite the first real snowstorm of the year which started early that morning, the State House was packed with people who had come from all corners of the state. There were so many people that the overflow ended up downstairs in rooms set-up with televisions. Fortunately, an acquaintance had reserved a seat for me up front, down on the main floor so I had a close-up view of the procedings (so close that I was seated behind the chair of the House Judiciary Committee!). For four hours, 500 of us occupied the House Chamber.

The chamber is elegant, a true gift of respect to the people. Deep red velvet curtains, held back with gold tassles, frame the large windows; red carpeting imitating an Oriental tapestry covers the floor, and the semi-circle of wooden flip-top desks speak of decades of struggle that have taken place in this regal setting.

What was so amazing about the entire evening was, first, how civil people behaved (even if some of the words some said were less than civil) and second, that we were engaged in this process at all.

When my name was called, and I stood in line waiting to speak my two-minute piece, I looked up front, beyond the table at which the members of the House Judiciary Committee were seated, to the Vermont seal. Holding up the design are the three simple words, ‘Freedom and Unity.’ My heart and mind focused on that first word, ‘Freedom.’

No matter what each one of us thinks about the question of same-gender marriage or domestic partnerships, surely we can be thankful for the mere fact that, by virtue of the way democracy is lived out in Vermont, we can speak out. The freedom that we have been given by our living in this place at this time is one that is sadly taken for granted by too many. Yet, as I stood waiting, all I could think of is those places in the world—South Africa during the era of apartheid, El Salvador pre-1994, Guatemala, East Timor and so many others—where the exercise of free speech is one that brings risk of death. I was moved by our freedom to gather—in safety—to listen to one another, to speak to our elected representatives and to struggle with an issue that touches all of us.

+

I pray that the same civility (for the most part) that prevailed in 2000 can once again be manifest.