OP-ED Inspirational history

Author: Michael and Judy Olinick

While we agree with [Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science] Murray Dry that achieving marriage equality in Vermont through the legislature rather than the courts was an important "first," we differ with him on some significant points: it's not accurate to say, as he does, that opponents of the marriage bill were not bigots. Many - probably the majority - were not. For the most part, opponents were Bible literalists, who could not or would not acknowledge the distinction between religious and civil marriage that was central to the debate, and who adamantly denied that civil marriage is a civil right. Many speeches, radio comments, letters to the editor and blog postings expressed virulent, undisguised homophobia. No one argued that anti-gay discrimination equaled or paralleled oppression of African Americans throughout US history. But laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying are clearly analogous to the anti-miscegenation laws that were finally overturned with the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision.

As to the issue of children's welfare: we don't see that the state has any defensible grounds for preferring heterosexual couples over same-sex couples as parents, except insofar as it is desirable for a child to live with both birth parents if the family environment is harmonious. But that scenario is not relevant to the marriage equality discussion. One of the opposition's bogus claims was that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would be harmful to children, but no credible support for this contention was ever presented. To the contrary, spokespeople for several Vermont mental health agencies testified that children suffer no ill effects from being raised by same-sex couples. Moreover, single parents and same-sex couples have been adopting children in Vermont for decades and will continue to do so regardless of changes in the marriage law. Allowing same-sex parents to marry will only enhance their families' stability and security, to the great benefit of the children.

Apart from the law's transforming effect on thousands of lives, the powerful and emotional statements of several legislators and citizens, the overwhelmingly positive initial votes followed by the mean-spirited gubernatorial veto and the cliff-hanger override were high political drama. The history-making outcome was testimony to the inspirational leadership of Beth Robinson (whose supporters have been heard to say that they would follow her off a cliff) and to the brilliant strategic collaboration of Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin and House Speaker Shap Smith, who handed Governor Jim Douglas '72 his first veto override and pierced his mantle of invulnerability.

Passage of Vermont's new marriage law was not only a historic event for the state, but, we hope, will also represent a turning point in the nationwide campaign for marriage equality.