Editorial A bittersweet victory

Author: [no author name found]

Following the veto issued Monday by Vermont governor Jim Douglas '72 against a pending bill legalizing same-sex marriage - legislation that passed by wide margins in both the House and the Senate - lawmakers were not the only ones up in arms. Across the nation, onlookers promptly delivered an outpouring of protest against Douglas' decision. At Middlebury, Professor of Russian Kevin Moss penned an op-ed that appears in today's pages. His argument about civil rights, particularly that they are "not a zero-sum game: recognizing my rights will not deprive you of yours" strikes a chord no matter what one's position on the issue in question.

Upon discussing Monday's events, we at The Campus were instantly prepared to decry Douglas' blatant disregard for civil rights and public opinion. And when the veto override came the next day, we rejoiced, knowing that the governor had bowed in response to overwhelming constituent support for the bill.

But the debate over same-sex marriage is about more than politics. It is, as Douglas said in his veto statement, an "intensely personal" issue - one that finds libertarians aligned with liberals, and constitutionalists allied with many conservatives. Douglas made his choice about the veto based partly on his personal belief that "marriage" should remain between a man and a woman. Naturally, we may never know exactly how much of the veto was influenced by Douglas' personal convictions. But for this reason, we must evaluate Douglas not merely on the outcome of his decision but on the very philosophy that led to that decision.

In a statement announcing the move, Douglas claims that he does, in fact, believe in granting full and complete civil rights to the gay community. This seems confusing. How could a governor who professes to support civil rights now scuttle a bill meant to extend those same rights to an underrepresented minority? In fact, while Douglas is a strong supporter of Vermont's current civil union law - which, as it stands, fails to deliver the same rights that legal marriage does - the governor has also expressed interest in expanding the scope of civil unions such that they would receive the same federal benefits that marriages already enjoy.

Sadly, Douglas' call for Congress to legislate federal-level civil unions for same-sex couples is unrealistic and unattainable - at least in our lifetimes. Perhaps the governor knows this, making his politically infeasible offer of an alliance with civil rights activists little more than an empty gesture. For this attempt at spinning the issue, we must protest not merely the governor's decision to issue the veto, but the political strategy standing behind it, as well.