The State of Marriage Debuts in Burlington

On Apr. 7, 2009, legislators at the Vermont Statehouse in Montpelier cast an historic vote legalizing gay marriage in Vermont.

“Those voting yes, 100. Those voting no, 49. One hundredneeded to pass, you have voted to override the veto,” announced Representative Shap Smith (D). The courtroom erupted in applause and cheering.

The story behind this legal battle began decades ago, under the leadership of Vermont lawyers Beth Robinson and Susan Murray, and prominent civil-rights attorney Mary Bonato. In Baker v. Vermont (1999), the trio clinched a unanimous court decision striking down a statute that barred gay couples from marriage. The ruling paved the way for civil unions, and eventually gay marriage in 2009. The State of Marriage, a new documentary that debuted at Burlington’s Main Street Landing explores the momentus accomplishment.

By 1996, activists had successfully mounted a campaign for gay marriage in Hawaii. However, an initial victory in the courts was nullified by a popular referendum in 1998. In light of this, the Vermont lawyers realized they had to win in three different arenas: “The court of public opinion, and also in the courts and also politically as well,” said Director Jeffrey Kaufman in an interview with Vermont Public Radio (VPR).

The group of lawyers had been preparing their legal arguments for decades.

“Susan was involved in her first LGBT family rights lawsuit in the late 1980s,” explained Kaufman. “Mary Bonato was one of the pioneers of the marriage equality movement. So they were laying the groundwork for this years before.”

However, just three years before Baker v. Vermont, the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Popularly known as DOMA, the federal legislation defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, allowing states to refuse to recognize homosexual couples married out-of-state.

Some gay rights activists condemned the grassroots effort as reckless and unrealistic. They argued that pushing for civil unions before other legal victories, like workplace security or anti-discrimination legislation, was pointless.

However, the critics were proven wrong. In a unanimous decision, The Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that to exclude the same-sex couple of Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan from the benefits of marriage was in violation of the state constitution.

“This is the first time that any state has not only recognized that same sex families exist, but for the first time has recognized that they have the same needs and deserve the same protections and rights as all other couples,” explained Susan Murray, referring to the legal victory in Baker v. Vermont. “That’s a first. That’s a legal and cultural milestone,” she added.

Ultimately, it is difficult to overemphasize the immensity of the legal victory in 2000. At the time, The New York Times called the civil unions “‘same-sex marriages’ in almost everything but the name.”

Director Kaufman was a radio host at the time of the legal battle. In an interview with VPR, he explained that the plaintiffs’ triumph had a profound effect on the gay rights movement nationally and internationally, precipitating the official legalization of gay marriage in Vermont in 2009.

“Other states, and actually other countries were influenced by what happened in Vermont,” Kaufman said.

In retrospect, it is difficult to imagine that the gay rights movement faced much opposition in Vermont, a state with such a progressive reputation. Yet the conservative backlash to the ruling was intense. After the court victory in 1999, a campaign known as “Take Back Vermont” emerged, with signs popping up in barns, houses and along streets across Vermont. Opposition groups became much more vocal, and rhetoric in opposition more heated.

The battle even had ramifications in the statehouse. Although Democratic candidate Howard Dean won the gubernatorial race, the Republican party rode a wave of popular discontentment over the decision and retook the majority in the House of Representatives.

“A number of politicians, when it came to voting for civil unions, ended up doing the right thing,” explained Kaufman in an interview, “even though they knew it would end up costing them their seats.”

The polemics are on full display in the documentary.

“One of the things we tried to do in the film,” said Kaufman, “is very respectfully capture both sides of the argument. We have a number of the very fierce opponents to marriage equality and civil unions, in the film.”

Many of these critics still rally against gay marriage nationally, which is one reason that co-producer Marcia Ross feels the film is so necessary.

“It’s important to have a sense of that vision to spark further change and inspiration for the future,” she said.