Vermont Marks 5 Years Of Civil Unions

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/122004vermont.htm

Monday marked the fifth anniversary of the landmark ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court ordering the legislature "to assign to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law."

The ruling led to the creation of "civil unions", making Vermont the first state in the country to formally recognize same-sex relationships. Since then some 7,000 gay and lesbian couples from around the country have affirmed their commitments in Vermont.

The ruling was not without its foes.

Conservatives called the decision 'worse than terrorism,' and claimed the institution of marriage was under attack. State Representative George Allard intoned, "This is a sad, dark day for the state of Vermont, and may God help us all."



no Mr. Allard--the day you were elected was a sad dark day for the state of Vermont--having hateful bastards like you in office

[BeeBee]

1. What? No Armageddon yet? n/t

[TaleWgnDg]

6. Hell. Do you mean to tell me that the sky hasn't fallen over VT? n/t

[latteromden]

2. I can sorta understand opposition to civil unions (although not really),

but "worse than terrorism"? Come on. Terrorists murder innocent people. Gay couples love each other and want the same benefits that heterosexual couples do. Where's the comparison? Honestly, I want to know who votes for these people and what is wrong with them.

[Brian_Expat]

3. And one very brave politician took a lot of flack over signing this bill

and campaigning for it.

Dr. Howard Dean.

He deserves all of our thanks.

[davidinalameda]

4. bull

sorry but everytime I see someone give Howard Dean credit for this I want to yack

the Vermont Supreme Court gave Dean and the legislature two options--marriage or civil unions

they took the easy way out

[Brian_Expat]

5. You weren't there campaigning

I was.

Dean had the option to run from the legislation or claim he was opposed to it and it was "forced" on him.

Instead, he decided to sign the legislation and campaign on that signature -- against the advice of most of his political advisors. He took a lot of flack from the radical right wing and had a lot of hate directed against him for having the courage to do that, and the contempt he gets from people like you helps explain why more people aren't standing up for gay people -- why take the huge risk if some purist is going to revise history to make his preferred primary candidate look better than you?

The only candidates for the Democratic nomination who took flack for a brave stand on gay issues were Howard Dean (in the 2000 gubernatorial election), John Kerry (over DOMA though he unfortunately backtracked in the 2004 campaign), and to an extent Kucinich. All the rest were poseurs on gay issues.

[TaleWgnDg]

7. Yes, Howard Dean stood up when others were hiding . . .

Yes, Howard Dean stood up when others were hiding . . . behind anything and everything and making any excuse that they could -- not to stand up and be counted for civil rights.

Dean didn't have to do what he did. He actually signed the Vermont "civil union" legislation into law. He didn't hide. As a medical doctor (M.D.) Howard Dean knew that sexual orientation discrimination was not based on sound reasoning, and was instead rebuttable by scientific indicia.

1.) Baker v. State of Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (1999)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=vt&vol=/supreme/&invol=98-032a

2.) "In response to Baker the Vermont Legislature enacted 15 V.S.A. 23, which created the legal relationship of 'civil union(.)' "
http://www.vtbar.org/ezstatic/data/vtbar/journal/mar_2002/Jourdan.pdf


.

[booley]

8. so now that it's been five years, have the cons...

.found even one example of how marriages have been harmed becuase it it?

Did Vermon't's divorce rate rise? Suicide? Child abuse? Has all the soda pop gone flat all at once?

What supposedly has been the negative consequences that made this decision worse the murder of 3000 people and the killing of hundreds of thousands more ina senseless war?

[Brian_Expat]

9. Well. . .

Vermont civil unions have a lower divorce rate than comparable heterosexual marriages in Vermont made at the same time.

And Massachusetts, the hub of legal gay marriage, has the lowest rate of divorce in the country -- heterosexual or homosexual.

[TaleWgnDg]

10. Yes, how very true . . .

In addition, throw into that mix that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the entire country plus Massachusetts has "no-fault divorce" too.

Many (ill-informed) people believe that "no fault" divorce states have high divorce rates because "divorce is easier" in those states. As we can all see that assumption is incorrect as to Massachusetts.


.

[TaleWgnDg]

11. To rebut any and all of those illogical and unfounded

To rebut any and all of those illogical and unfounded allegations, an informed individual should read Baker v. State of Vermont, 170 Vt. 194 (1999) and Goodridge v. Massachusetts Board of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003). Both of these cases present scientific indicia, amicus briefs, and court inquiries whether there is any harm to marriage if same-sex couples are granted the right to marry.

The answer in both cases, Vermont and Massachusetts, is a resounding "NO!" None of the parties in Vermont and none of the parties in Massachusetts could demonstrate to either court in either state that there would be any harm to marriage if same-sex couples were to marry. To put it another way, no litigant could put forth credible information that the "institution of marriage" would suffer harm if same-sex couples were to marry.

Further, there was recent federal litigation re Goodridge where the presenting party tried to argue that they had a right to be heard by the federal trial court; however, those litigants failed in trying to convince the federal trial court that they suffered harm as opposite-sex couples where same-sex couples were allowed to marry. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected review on this case (denied cert). The trial court's opinion thus stands as is . . . no harm to opposite-sex marrieds if same-sex couples were to marry, no harm to the "institution of marriage."

There's more on this subject -- much more -- in medical, sociological, psychological, and other professional peer review periodicals.

Here's some related information from the American Psychological Association:

1.) http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
2.) http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gart.html
3.)

Goodridge (2003, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage case): http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html
Baker (1999, Vermont, civil union case): http://dol.state.vt.us/gopher_root3/supct/170/98-032.op

As for the divorce rate in Massachusetts and Vermont, Massachusetts remains as the lowest divorce rate in the country despite it being a "no fault" divorce jurisdiction, and similarly for Vermont. Vermont is approximately 15th down on the list of all the states; Vermont is a "no fault" jurisdiction as well.


.

[GOPBasher]

12. "worse than terrorism"????

These people sink to new lows every single day. Is this for real? Did someone actually say that? Please tell me this quote is made up as a joke. I don't want to believe someone is that hateful.