Jeffersonian

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.

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.'