Baker Chronicles Movement for Civil Unions Cites Affirmation of 'Common Humanity' as Legislation's Enduring Legacy

Author: Campus Editor in Chief

QUESTION & ANSWER

Two years after the contentious civil unions bill won approval from the Vermont State Legislature, co-plaintiff Stan Baker has settled back into a life of relative obscurity. Reflecting on the legal battle that spawned the civil union legislation, though, brings back memories of when his face was well known in the press and around the state.

Baker, a registered play therapist, paused from cleaning out his office at the Addison County Counseling Center in Middlebury this weekend to recount the salient moments in the movement for civil unions. He will begin work as a clinical director at Burlington's Fletcher Allen Health Care System next week.

Baker and his partner Peter Harrigan were one of six same-sex couples who sued the state of Vermont in July 1997 for the right to marry. The suit touched off a three year legal battle that reached the State Supreme Court and was finally resolved in the state Legislature on April 26, 2000.



Campus: What first motivated you to seek marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples? What were the first steps in what later became a statewide movement for civil unions?

Baker: I think what motivated me was being the narrator for the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force video and really becoming acquainted with the movement at that point. Peter and I in many ways are not a gay male couple who need more than they have. However, one reason why we did it is because we thought we could. We both had protection on the job and we could become part of a movement like this that we believed so deeply in without putting our jobs in jeopardy. And we both have supportive families. Many other people, had they jumped into this public process, would have lost families or lost jobs.

Being able to marry gives gay and lesbian parents a legal connection to each other as well as a legal connection to the child, and I really wanted to support that. I'd also seen many instances in which friends had not been able to get into the hospital when their same-sex spouses were ill and couldn't make medical decisions. So for all of those reasons.

I also like to remind people that Peter and I jumped into this because we love each other. We both had come from families where marriage was important and we felt it was the right thing for us.



Campus: When you reflect on the legislative process leading up to the April 26, 2000, approval of the civil unions bill, what are the moments that stand out most vividly in your mind?

Baker: I think there are two most vivid moments for me. One of the most vividly positive moments was when the joint version of the bill that the House and Senate had put together was finally passed. I was actually at a meeting in Randolph and Peter was coming from St. Michael's, and we were going to meet at the State House. He was already on the floor and I actually got there right after the vote had been taken. I remember running up the stairs in the State House and people were saying congratulations, congratulations — I wasn't really sure until I walked into the chamber, but as soon as I did, and this was back when both of our faces were well known, lots of cameras started following me. They followed me over to Peter and I gave him a big hug. That picture was in the paper all over the place. But even not being there for the vote made it more exciting to walk in, and just everyone there was amazingly thrilled, except I guess the people who were against it. But they didn't seem to be there.

And the second most vivid moment for me was before that. It was the year before during the Supreme Court testimony, which I found amazing. I was very proud of that day for Vermont and for myself and for everyone because I think the suit was heard respectfully and the justices asked amazingly wonderful questions. Our lawyer Beth Robinson, who argued it before the Supreme Court, was just spectacular. And I felt that this is really political and judicial process at its best as only Vermont can do it. I remember just feeling immensely proud.



Campus: To what extent would you say the civil unions bill was a compromise? Were you at all disappointed that civil unions were called by that name rather than recognized as marriage in the traditional sense of the term?

Baker: Yes. Sitting now in April of 2002 I don't think I feel any disappointment, but when the Supreme Court decision came down, the plaintiffs and our lawyers had very confused emotions. At one point we felt that this was landmark and amazing. The language of the Supreme Court decision is beautifully written and talks about common humanity and just makes some beautiful statements. On the other hand, it did not give us marriage, and there was a touch and go point in January and early February of 2000 when the Freedom to Marry group was trying to decide whether to go with the Domestic Partner bill — which later became the civil unions bill — or oppose it because it wasn't marriage. We decided to support it, feeling that there might not be another chance.

So we supported it, but with the feeling that we were giving something up. It's clear now what we're giving up. An easy example: Peter and I filed our taxes in February, and for the first time we got to file those jointly as a couple in Vermont but we didn't get to do that federally because civil unions are not recognized federally. If I were to die or Peter was, neither one of us could inherit the other's Social Security as a married couple could. If we traveled outside the state we have no protections. If someone in Vermont falls in love with someone in Canada, a civil union does not give green card status to the Canadian as marriage would. If we had children they wouldn't be protected outside of Vermont. So for all of those reasons, civil unions, while equal in Vermont, are not equal in the nation.



Campus: How soon do you think national recognition of civil unions could come?

Baker: Sometime between 10 and 30 years, to offer a wide spread. It took 30 years from the first biracial couple legislation in California to the time that it was made unconstitutional to say that multi or biracial couples couldn't marry. This seems to be moving faster. My sense is that people of [the younger generation] don't seem to think it's a big deal. A lot of people don't even know that gay people can't be married. My sense is as your generation and people younger come up, they will sort of shrug their shoulders and say, "Of course."



Campus: When you first filed the suit, did you expect this issue to be as divisive as it was?

Baker: No, because I thought that we would either get marriage or be turned down. And I think if I were to be honest I would say that about 51 percent of me thought we would actually get it and the 49 percent thought we would be turned down. I was totally unprepared for what they did, which was to say that gay people need an institution that is equal in all ways, but you figure it out, legislature.

What happened is that the Judiciary Committee hearings in the Vermont House — which they wisely decided to open up to the public — opened up a debate unlike any seen before in which legislators and people on the street were using words that they never used before, like gay and lesbian and homosexual.

But I don't think it was as divisive as people like to say. I think it's actually a testament to Vermont that it stayed primarily in the press and on lawn signs, and in elections. A few people got voted out of office, but if you look at this year, the attempts to bring it back to the legislature were basically ignored, even by legislators who said they disagree. People are more interested in the economy and Act 60 and the Champion Land deal and terrorism. The debate was, in the end, part of a civil process.



Campus: Was there ever a time in the c
ourse of the legislative debate when you thought, "Maybe Vermont isn't ready for this?"

Baker: No, I think that we had done a lot of talking before we launched this suit and talked thoroughly with our lawyers about all of the possible outcomes — we kind of rehearsed them, even the outcome of violence being done to us.

I've lived in Vermont since 1971 and my ancestors are from here. I'm related to Ethan Allen — my grandfather eight generations back was Ethan Allen's first cousin. So I really believe in this state to, in kind of a scrappy way, come through with the right thing. The Green Mountain Boys were a bunch of thugs, but they were also a bunch of iconoclastic thinkers who led the state in the direction of really believing in freedom and equality and standing on your own. I have a very strong belief in Vermont being a place where the right thing will happen given time.

There was a time during the second public House hearing when I got, I don't know if depressed is the word, very tired. They did one speaker for and one speaker against, and every against person seemed to be quoting that one chapter of Leviticus. It was very tiresome because I'm actually a spiritual person and I wanted to say, "That's not my Bible."

And it was hard just sitting there and trying to look dignified when all that crap just kept coming and coming and coming. But we also has a lot of support at those times and we turned to it when we needed it.



Campus: Could you comment on whether you think there is a next chapter in the civil unions saga, either in Vermont or on the federal level?

Baker: I don't think there is a next chapter for me, except to be interviewed by people like you or, if something else happens, to be interviewed again, or perhaps to write a book.

But I think there is a next chapter federally, but I think it will happen in other states first. Another state needs to pass legislation similar to this. Once more than one state has it, it's going to become more difficult for it not to become reciprocal.



Campus: What lessons have you taken away from the civil unions movement?

Baker: I've had confirmed or reconfirmed for myself that just about anything is possible if you think it through carefully, stand up for what's right and don't back off, and do it with respect. I think one of the reasons we were successful is that we were more respectful to the politicians than the anti-civil unions people.

I really love the language of the decision, I really believe in common humanity, and I think this shows that it's possible. I believe in love. I believe in marriage for those who want it. I see myself as being part of a grand sweep of a movement in our country towards real diversity and real inclusion. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.