|
The New York Times
U.S.
Vt. Gay Marriage
Debate Tamer This Time
By AP from
nytimes.com on the Web, January 13, 2008
MONTPELIER, Vt. -- For many
who lived through Vermont's not-so-civil debate over civil unions, the memories
remain painfully fresh: hate mail, threatening telephone messages, tense
public meetings.
This time around, as the state weighs whether to legalize gay marriage, the
debate is noticeably tamer with little of the vitriol and recrimination that
surrounded its groundbreaking 2000 decision to legally recognize gay and lesbian
couples.
It's early: Lawmakers say they're unlikely to push for a vote this year on
pending legislation that would legalize gay marriage, although a state-appointed
panel has been gathering public input and is due to report to the Legislature in
April.
Although that absence of an impending vote may be what's keeping things civil,
people involved in the debate have noticed a change in atmosphere.
''It's a very different tenor,'' said Beth Robinson, chairwoman of the Vermont
Freedom to Marry Task Force, which supports gay marriage. ''People have
had an opportunity to come to terms. Vermonters have had eight years to
see the two guys next door, or the two women down the street who have a legally
recognized relationship under the civil unions law.''
On Dec. 20, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex unions
was unconstitutional and ordered the Legislature to come up with a law
accommodating them. That triggered a yearlong battle in which a state that
prides itself on tolerance seemed to lack it.
Supporters and opponents alike streamed into Montpelier to rally and lobby
lawmakers.
When the law took effect July 1, 2000, it didn't quell the controversy or the
fallout. It became a central issue in that year's elections and 17
incumbents who voted in favor lost their seats.
''It was quite rancorous,'' said Stephen Cable, founder of Vermont Renewal,
which opposed civil unions then and opposes gay marriage now.
''I have a box of hate mail you can't imagine. We got dried feces and used
condoms in the mail. We had people stalking our vice president, who had an
armed guard at her house for three weeks, 24/7,'' Cable said.
''It was a time unlike anything since the Vietnam War era, when you had the
sense that the whole world around you was divided,'' said David Moats, author of
''Civil Wars: A Battle For Gay Marriage,'' a book about Vermont's civil
unions controversy.
An Associated Press exit poll of voters that November found the state split 49
percent to 49 percent on whether civil unions were a good idea. Four years
later, the poll asked voters to choose between three options for recognition of
same-sex unions: full marriage, civil unions or no recognition.
Forty percent said they supported marriage, 37 percent civil unions and 21
percent neither.
Other states followed Vermont's lead. Connecticut, New Jersey and New
Hampshire have endorsed civil unions and California and Washington have enacted
domestic partner laws. Only Massachusetts permits gay marriage.
Last summer, the Legislature appointed an 11-member Vermont Commission on Family
Recognition and Protection to explore the idea of gay marriage and hear how
Vermonters feel about it. The panel, which opponents say is stacked with
gay marriage supporters and have boycotted, has held seven hearings and has
three more scheduled.
The hearings have generated plenty of input, but no name-calling or personal
attacks.
James LaPierre, who has a civil union partner and two children, saw the contrast
firsthand. He went to a 2000 meeting on civil unions intending to get up
and speak, but he was intimidated by the atmosphere and kept quiet.
''People would stand up and go to the microphone and there was jeering and
catcalling,'' said LaPierre, 43, a nurse from Burlington. ''It was
hateful, and scary.''
Last month, LaPierre went to a hearing by the Commission on Family Recognition.
This time, the gathering was ''supportive'' and he got up and spoke. But
it had fewer people -- about 100, by his count, compared with about 500 at the
2000 event.
''Instead of a hateful, unruly, mob-like meeting, it was civil and organized.
There was representation of the other side, but only two or three people,'' he
said.
Opponents believe the change in tone may have more to do with their boycott --
and the lack of impending action -- than acceptance of gay marriage.
''If they'd announced they were going to move on it this year and these hearings
were on a bill we intend to have a vote on this year, you'd be seeing a much
different scenario,'' said Rev. Craig Bensen, president of Take It To The
People, which promotes traditional marriage.
Thomas Little, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 2000 and now the
chair of Commission on Family Recognition, acknowledges that some gay marriage
opponents are staying on the sidelines -- for now.
''Most people don't expect the Legislature to take any action in 2008, and
opponents, therefore, are keeping their powder dry until some point in the
future, when it's more likely to become a legislative debate,'' he said.
www.leg.state.vt.us/WorkGroups/FamilyCommission/
|
