You have a great blog and you dont need to worry what other people think
about how many things you post or what you post about in your own personal
blog. Dont apologize to anyone.

More | Subscribe | 14-Day Archives (Free) | Long-Term Archives
(Paid)
The cradle of civil unions
WHAT VERMONT CAN TEACH NEW JERSEY ON SAME-SEX CEREMONIES
Sunday, October 29, 2006
BY MARY JO PATTERSON
Star-Ledger Staff
MIDDLEBURY, Vt. -- By the end of last week, the splendid colors of
Vermont's fall had largely faded or disappeared, and the wedding season was
in full retreat.

But at 9:45 a.m. Friday, in front of a sugar maple still hanging on to its
leaves, a justice of the peace matter-of-factly joined Paige Pierson, 39,
and DeeDee Flagg, 37, in perpetual union.

The two women, who have been together 15 years and are raising a son, did
not expect to be overcome with emotion. The event, near the Old Chapel at
Middlebury College, lasted barely two minutes. Still, when the justice of
the peace concluded the affair with some kindly, grandfatherly advice,
tears came.

"If each of you takes responsibility for the quality of your life together,
it will be marked by abundance and delight," said Michael Olinick, 65, a
married father of four who is also a mathematics professor.

"Think of that, dude!" Flagg said to her son, Logan Pierson-Flagg, 4, whom
she had wrapped in a big bearhug. "We're married!"

In reality, Flagg and Pierson had not been married but rather "joined in
civil union" -- "C.U.'d," as it is sometimes called -- in a legally binding
rite the Vermont Legislature established in 2000 under circumstances very
similar to those now facing New Jersey lawmakers. Ruling seven years apart,
in nearly identical cases, the highest courts of Vermont and New Jersey
ordered their respective legislatures to craft laws giving gay and lesbian
couples desiring to wed the same rights granted heterosexual couples who
marry.

The Vermont Supreme Court's December 1999 ruling precipitated a long, noisy
and divisive public debate about the meaning of marriage and the nature of
homosexuality. Legislators were forced to act in an election year, making
their actions immediately answerable to constituents. Crusaders of all
stripes, many from outside Vermont, camped out at the state capitol.
Reporters and cameras seemed to be everywhere.

Today Vermont's first-in-the-nation civil unions are old hat, and their
numbers -- after an initial explosion -- are on the decline. But the drama
of their birth has not been forgotten. Vermonters wonder if the New Jersey
experience, set in motion by last week's Supreme Court ruling, will prove
as traumatic.

"There was a lot of tension. When the final vote was taken, we knew it was
a mark that would be difficult to overcome -- a new precedent in the
country," said former state Rep. Frank Mazur, 65, a Republican who
represented South Burlington and opposed the civil union law.


VILIFIED

John R. Edwards, 64, a retired state trooper and moderate Republican from a
town near the Canadian border, voted in favor of civil unions -- a decision
that ultimately cost him his seat in the state House of Representatives.
"It was intense. A life-changing experience," he said.
Page 2 of 5

VILIFIED

John R. Edwards, 64, a retired state trooper and moderate Republican from a
town near the Canadian border, voted in favor of civil unions -- a decision
that ultimately cost him his seat in the state House of Representatives.
"It was intense. A life-changing experience," he said.

Edwards, who grew up on a dairy farm, had served three terms. He and his
wife, both widowed in earlier marriages, had six children between them. He
was generally well-liked and respected. But in 2000, his victorious primary
opponent branded him "lower than whale dung." Edwards attended one town
meeting on the issue where feelings ran so high he feared there'd be a
riot. Neighbors avoided meeting his eyes.

A preacher at one of the churches in town predicted Edwards would suffer
eternal damnation. On the other hand, a second church "almost canonized
me," he said. And one day when Edwards, a Catholic, was on his knees at
Mass, an elderly woman squeezed his shoulder and said, 'Go get'em, John."

Edwards is now U.S. marshal for Vermont. In the coming months, he says, he
will watch whether New Jersey legislators produce a law in the Vermont mold
-- reserving marriage for heterosexuals -- or dare to redefine marriage as
an institution for people of any sexual orientation. That's the position he
personally came to favor, surprising himself in the process, but back in
2000 it was politically impossible to adopt, he said.

The New Jersey debate "should be interesting, but it shouldn't be as
emotional," Edwards said over lunch last week in a Burlington restaurant.
"We've had civil unions here now for over six years, and the sky hasn't
fallen. We haven't had any major floods.

"People who predicted all kinds of terrible things would happen now tell
me, 'Nothing has changed.'

"I say, 'I told you that.'"

These days he considers Vermont civil unions to be "more than half a loaf,
but not a whole loaf, not equal" to marriage.


DIFFERENT CLIMATE

Much has changed since 2000, and that should make New Jersey's task easier,
said Tom Little, a lawyer and liberal Republican who guided creation of
Vermont's civil union law as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Connecticut now also recognizes civil unions, and Massachusetts has
legalized gay marriage.

"The newness and novelty and shock value have worn off. That gives New
Jersey a distinct advantage we didn't have," Little said last week. After
the civil union law passed, he ran successfully for re-election but was not
a candidate in 2002 or 2004. He is now general counsel for the Vermont
Student Assistance Corp.

As for the ceremony itself, that's left to the couple's taste and
imagination. Getting a "divorce," known as a dissolution, is harder; at
least one member of the couple must reside in Vermont in order for
Vermont's Family Court to dissolve the union.

Judy Kelly, 72, a justice of the peace in Burlington for 30 years who
happily performs both weddings and civil unions, estimates she has presided
at 150 of the latter. Many have been in her own backyard, since most of the
so-called "good places" to marry in town are booked a year in advance, she
said.

"I wouldn't mind being married in my own backyard. It's large, for a city
yard, and there are flowers," she said.

As for her joining same-sex couples, "My husband has often been very kind
and decided to participate, because sometimes there's a sense of
loneliness, for often the couple's families do not support them."

Among the couples who stick out in her mind are two "gorgeous" young women
from Utah, whose fathers were elders in the Mormon church, and a couple
from Detroit who brought along a formally attired wedding arranger.

"I often use relatively the same service as I do for weddings," Kelly said.
"I don't take it lightly. I type it up on a really special paper and put
some time on it. These are people to be taken very seriously in terms of
their commitment and their desire to have the rights and privileges that
married couples have."

Not all of Burlington's 15 elected justices of the peace like to perform
civil unions, she said; for some, there may be religious objections. "If
they don't want it on their conscience, they'll say, 'I'm busy, I'm not
able to do it."


ECONOMIC BOOST

Some people in Vermont claim civil unions have benefited the state, by
boosting tourism. A number of establishments have created a new industry by
packaging civil union weekends like honeymoons.

One is the Moose Meadow Lodge in Waterbury, a gay-operated inn on 86 acres.
Greg Trulson, a co-owner of the lodge with his partner Willie Docto,
officiates at the ceremonies. (They were united themselves in civil union
in Vermont on Nov. 10, 2001.)

Trulson is a justice of the peace as well as an ordained member of the
clergy. In 2004, he said, he performed 96 civil unions at Moose Meadow; in
2005, 70; to date this year, he has officiated at 50.

"We have bookings into next year," he said. "We advertise ceremonies for
both civil unions and weddings, and offer a complete package. We get
everything from small, intimate unions to big parties."

While Vermont's passage of the civil union law satisfied the state's
Supreme Court, it did not really end the debate, say people who remain on
both sides of the issue.
One group, the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, continues to lobby --
at events ranging from church services to county fairs -- for a law
allowing gays and lesbians to marry, not just be joined in civil union.

Those who oppose civil unions, meanwhile, lament that Vermont opened the
door. "Vermont was a test state," said Mazur, the former state
representative. "We knew that when it got in here, it could get in any
other state."

Now, he said, "Vermont's known as the Gay State."

John Edwards still ruminates about the experience.

"As a law enforcement officer, I spent my career protecting people's
rights," he said. While a state trooper Edwards directed criminal
investigations and commanded a barracks.

Seven year ago, he spent weeks agonizing over the civil union debate as a
member of the House Judiciary Committee. The issue took his mind to places
it had never gone. He pored over a copy of the Supreme Court's decision.

"I knew there were people in the community who were gay or lesbian, but I
hadn't given it a lot of thought one way or another, and I certainly hadn't
given the issue of marriage itself much thought," he said.

His eureka moment came two days before the House was scheduled vote on the
measure. Edwards, wanting to be alone, had sought refuge in a ceremonial
room at the Vermont State House known as the Battle Creek Room, and was
sitting in an understuffed chair.

"I suddenly realized that supporting civil unions was the right thing to
do," he said. "You can't base a right on sexual orientation, which is
something people have no control over. I realized it was right, morally,
and according to the state's constitution, which I was sworn to uphold.

"Once I made up my mind, I was fine. A load lifted from my shoulders."

Today Edwards is not bitter about his defeat. He is proud of the role he
played in Vermont's history.

"The public discourse was healthy for the state. I'll bet there's less
homophobia here now than there was, because of what we did. I do wish we
had called it 'marriage,' but in politics you do what's possible. Sometimes
you don't get the whole piece," he said.

Beth Robinson, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the Vermont marriage case
and a founder of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, said New Jersey
legislators must decide whether "to be at the forefront of the civil rights
movement and allow same-sex couples to actually marry, or drop into the
pack" and approve civil unions.

In 2000 Robinson's group supported Vermont's civil union bill as a
disappointing but necessary political compromise. Its passage was anything
but assured, so she decided to support it.

"In its time, it was in the forefront, but at this point if feels like
Marriage Lite," she said last week. "You can't get around the fact that it
sends a message that we're not embracing this couple as fully equal."

Robinson said her decision to support the measure haunts her. At the time,
she hoped the civil union law would become a steppingstone to the
legalization of gay marriage.

What New Jersey does, over the coming months, will demonstrate whether she
did the wrong thing, she said.

"If New Jersey looks at this and decides, 'The sky hasn't fallen in
Massachusetts, and we're going to do the simple and fair thing and change
our marriage laws,' then we'll feel good about what we did in Vermont," she
said. "But if the Legislature there says, 'Civil unions were good enough
for Vermont and they're good enough for us,' I'd feel crummy."


Mary Jo Patterson may be reached at mpatterson@starledger.com or (973)
392-4215.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :-)

Dear Mr. Allen, (and recipients)

I received your response in regards to the US Marriage Amendment not
blocking states from acknowledging Civil Unions or Partnerships. Mr.
Allen, your supporters may feel this is true, but it's not. I would like
to share with you my personal reasons I don't support any Amendment
regarding Marriage. One reason this is so personal to me is because this
will be on the ballot in November. It has implications that hit very close
to home for me. Why should the majority vote on the freedom/rights of a
minority; how is that justice when the outcome is nothing short of
hopeless?

Here is my history; my partner and I have been together nearly 5 years now.
We live in the same way an engaged couple would. We have a joint checking
account, we purchased our home together, we purchased our cars together,
and our wills reflect our wishes and commitments to each other as life
partners. You might think, that is all well and good, so why are my
feathers in a ruffle? It is because this new amendment states that marriage
can only be between one man and one woman, and that any arrangement
approximating marriage is null and void...

So, as you can imagine, if I were to pass away, any one of my greedy family
members to walk in under this law and take everything away from my partner
(or vice versa). Since I have checked into this with multiple lawyers and a
judge, I know it to be a fact. Then if I were hospitalized for any reason
and could not express my wishes to the staff, my partner would not be
allowed in to see me. The one person that I would want with me, would be
kept from being at my side in case of an emergency because he is not
"related to me" or married to me. These are just a few of the reasons my
blood boils over this subject. We live a very quiet life, we volunteer time
to our community and do our part as good citizens. I even hold an office in
our community's government and work for a major worldwide company, and so
does my partner. Regardless, our commitment to each other is very personal.
We don't run out and kiss in public or any other offensive act. We are very
private and show the public at large, the utmost respect. It bothers me
because these laws and amendments make our commitment to each other null
and void in many cases especially under the law. Our contracts and wills
are of a legal nature and no amendment or law should block something so
personal and private. It is simply no one's business, or it shouldn't be...
I hope this helps you better understand my personal feelings now.

My parents are long gone, both passed away years ago. My brother is a
devout Southern Baptist and struggles with my lifestyle; my sister is a
drug addict in your fine state and would take any opportunity to get
anything she could of value in light of my death... It simply isn't
right... I just want to live my life in peace. Surely you can understand
that? I hope. I am not saying my life style is right or natural. I am not
even asking for you to agree with it or approve of it. I just want people
to respect my life as an American and as a fellow human being. My partner
and I hurt no one, we don't bother anyone. We deserve a little better
treatment by our government and by others. We only ask for the same respect
and tolerance that we show everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less. I
think if you spoke one on one to other gay people that are in committed
relationships they would tell you the same thing. I will be the first to
admit we are just as human as heterosexuals; we have people that live in
the bars and clubs that represent our community poorly, like every other
community. The hard part is looking beyond those that stand out and seeing
the honest hard working people in each community, if gay or straight, good
people that just want to live the American dream and be happy. So many
people make this a religious issue, which I understand and actually
respect. To them, I ask, please allow me the same freedom you have, and
allow God to be the judge. I'm not harming you in any way. Besides the
first amendment is supposed to give us all the right to worship or not, as
we see fit.

Please Mr. Allen, stop the lies; you can't really be that naive. You know
as well as I do that this amendment will strip any connection I have with
my partner, short of roommate status. This is nothing short of
discrimination and evil. I know you want to run for President, but first
your have to act like one. You can't go around calling people names, and
taking people's rights away by refusing to allow the law to protect them
through contracts, beneficiaries, and other legal arrangements. It's not
American or Virginian, its bigotry at it's finest. I am sorry for being so
angry. Put yourself in my shoes. How would you feel?

People say Love is Blind... I say Religion is...

Following any religion so blindly and placing it before the very freedoms
that allow that religion to exist is DANGEROUS. If you doubt it's
happening, look at history around the world. Look at Iraq, look at the
crusades. Now look at the evangelical uprising here in the US. It is of
things to come... We must stop judging each other and remember what
America is all about... FREEDOM & LIBERTY.

VA BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1 November 2006

Shall Article I, the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution of Virginia be
amended to state "That only a union between one man and one woman may be a
marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political
subdivisions"

"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or
recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that
intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of
marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create
or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is
assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of
marriage."?


Dear Family, Friends, Associates and Neighbors:

I send this message to you as a plea. Above is the full text of the
amendment that you, as a registered voter, will be voting on this November.
This is a plea because this amendment will deeply affect my life in a
profound way. Please note the section that is bolded and underlined in
red above. It states that no agreement or even contract, such as a will or
beneficiary will be valid between any two individuals, other than those
that are legally married. This impacts contacts with people that have
jointly purchased homes, listed others as beneficiaries, will agreements,
joint bank accounts and many other legal agreements that you might take for
granted.

This entire subject is very personal and private to me. I would never
discuss something of this nature with anyone other than my partner, for
those that know me, you already know even writing this email is extremely
uncomfortable for me. While I might agree and respect the sanctity of
marriage, I do not agree with the wording of this amendment. It restricts
me from legally securing my personal and financial affairs in my life.
This is extremely humiliating to me. I have confirmed with three different
law firms and even spoke with a retired judge to confirm the implication of
this amendment to all unmarried individuals. This amendment simply goes
too far.

I sincerely ask you to vote against this amendment in November. Virginia
already has at least 2 different laws in place that protect marriage. This
amendment not only goes too far, but it is simply unnecessary.

As your relative, friend, associate and neighbor. I respectfully ask you
to vote against this amendment in November. Please vote "NO" and encourage
your friends and family members to also vote "NO". I rarely ask anyone for
anything, this time my plea is very important.

Honorable Elected Official:

I am writing you today because of this cultural war that seems to have
broken out regarding the marriage amendment. I have taken the time to
speak with both extreme sides on the matter and the results are always the
same and surprisingly consistent.

The deeply religious people always want, "to protect the sanctity of
marriage and define it as a union between one man and one woman"; which is
fine from a religious point of view. However if you look at and speak with
homosexual people they say, "They want the same rights and protections as a
married couple."

Both of these arguments are valid in the Liberties outlined in the
Constitution, specifically the preamble. Where the opposition comes in is
when the argument becomes one-sided. When you have the deeply religious
pushing for an amendment and the homosexuals pushing for equal marriage
rights you cause this cultural war. This is understandable if you take a
moment to understand both sides of this situation.

The answer is simple. While passing this legislature to define marriage,
also attach or push through legislature to protect the rights of
homosexuals. If you don't want to call it a Religious Marriage and a Civil
Marriage, you could just call one Marriage, and the other a Civil Union.
The catch is, when it comes to legality the word marriage is already on all
legal documents between two people, if you change the wording to Civil
Union, all the documents have to change to accommodate the new status.

This is a topic that many people take sides on. I think if we all tried to
understand each other and tried harder to meet in the middle agreements
could be made to protect both. However, this could not be done separately.
These laws need to pass together as one amendment, and need to be reviewed
by both parties to ensure the wording isn't so loose that you could drive a
bus through the loop holes. This is the same issue facing Virginia's
amendment.

I ask everyone that reads this letter to put down the stones, take a deep
breath, understand the deeply religious aren't going away, and the
homosexuals are only growing in numbers. It is time to find a peaceful
solution that makes everyone happy. Please remember that "respect does not
require approval." We live in the United States of America; we must all
start being American's first and everything else second. We need to treat
everyone with respect and dignity despite if we agree or disagree with what
they are asking for; as long as it does no harm to anyone else then there
is no reason not to accommodate their liberties and equal rights under the
law.

In memory of Coretta Scott King, please remember "justice is indivisible",
not long ago she spoke on this issue and was very plain spoken about it;
please work toward a solution that represents everyone, not just the
majority in this case. Remember, what the homosexual people want doesn't
hurt anyone; if it did, then pass all the laws you want to, but what they
want is respect and liberty like every other American.

Dear Elected Official:

I found an amazing statement recently I wanted to share with you.

To be a person of faith is to have the world challenge that faith. Was the
universe designed by God? Should marriage only be between one man and one
woman? That's up to everyone in this country to decide for themselves,
because the Framers of our Constitution believed that if the people were to
be sovereign and belong to different religions at the same time, then our
official religion would have to be no religion at all. It was a bold
experiment then--as it is now. It wasn't meant to make us comfortable. It
was meant to make us FREE.

This statement expresses the very fabric of what it is to be an American.
It is our most essential imperative that protects all of us in the first
amendment. I fear our country has lost sight of this. So many seem bent
on protecting the sanctity of marriage.

This entire controversy contrasts our freedoms in this country. I simply
ask that each and every person remember the freedoms our framers worked so
hard to protect and cherish. In the times of modern conveniences and fast
food we have forgotten these most basic imperatives and are writing things
into our constitutions that would make the Framers of our Constitutions
faint.

We all need to be very careful and much less reckless in regards to our
Constitutions and most sacred documents.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It seems that all the different states are attempting to sanctify marriage
by using the state constitutions. This goes against the first amendment.
It amazes me that our leadership is getting away with this (probably
because they are mostly Christian...) raising an entirely new issue, but
still the same dangerous lack of regard and respect for these documents.
It's time to draw the line again...

I would simply like to ask you to think before you act so quickly.

"To be a person of faith is to have the world challenge that faith. Was
the universe designed by God? Should marriage only be between one man and
one woman? That's up to everyone in this country to decide for themselves,
because the Framers of our Constitution believed that if the people were to
be sovereign and belong to different religions at the same time, then our
official religion would have to be no religion at all. It was a bold
experiment then--as it is now. It wasn't meant to make us comfortable. It
was meant to make us FREE.'