The House vote overriding the governor s veto on same-sex marriage provided a stunning example of how much the debate on the subject has changed in the past nine years. To have 100 representatives vote to override is a remarkable demonstration of the sea change that has taken place.
The adoption of the marriage equality act this year also serves as an example of the wisdom of the Supreme Court in 1999: They had a pretty good feel for the shape of the political landscape a decade ago.
In 1999, when the Supreme Court was asked to declare gay marriage legal, four of the five justices held back, even though they appeared to believe it should be.
The fifth Justice Denise Johnson basically called her colleagues cowards, writing that their decision abdicates this Court s constitutional duty to redress violations of constitutional rights. Johnson wanted to grant gays and lesbians the right to marry immediately.
What the justices did that day was to say gay and lesbian couples must have the same benefits and protections given married couples of the opposite sex. But the court felt that it should be up to the Legislature to decide whether those benefits would come through marriage.
Governor Jim Douglas decision to veto the marriage bill was unexpected on a political level, even though it made sense on a personal level.
The full court seemed to be saying that no legal or constitutional reason existed to restrict marriage in Vermont to a union between a man and a woman. The division between Justice Johnson and her four colleagues was over how to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to gays and lesbians.
Johnson wanted the court to order gay marriage: The court has a duty to right a wrong if it sees it, she argued.
But the four others, led by Chief Justice Jeffrey Amestoy, felt such an order by a court could be explosive. Our decision declares decidedly new doctrine, wrote Amestoy. A sudden change in the marriage laws or the statutory benefits traditionally incidental to marriage may have disruptive and unforeseen consequences.
In a telling passage Amstoy quoted from an article in the Harvard Law Review: When a democracy is in moral flux, courts may not have the best or final answers. Judicial answers may be wrong. They may be counter-productive even if they are right.
And so the battle was fought in the 2000 Legislature, which gave birth to the concept and term civil union.
Today civil unions are accepted by most Americans; political leaders of all stripes back them. In 2000, however, many in the state and throughout the nation considered civil unions a radical concept.
The landscape on this issue was completely different from today. Emotions ran high in both the state and the State House. Legislators were torn in ways they had never experienced.
During the civil unions debate Senator Dick Sears, D-Bennington, told his colleagues, I can t tell you all the things I have been called at home. What we have is a state with a lot of fear, a lot of unknown. Chittenden Senator Jim Leddy, a Democrat, said, I live in the community I was born in, raised in and grew up in. It is difficult and painful to be accused of betraying my values, betraying my faith, betraying my parents, my family and my heritage.
The debate in the House showed most clearly the division in the state. Representative Marion Milne, a Republican from the small town of Washington, said, Depending on how we vote, this decision may cost some of us our political careers. If I am measured only by this one vote in my entire political life, I have served my constituents well by voting for this bill. I will not be silenced by hatred and intolerance.
She lost her seat in the 2000 elections.
Now, nine years later, the world has caught up with Vermont and in some cases passed the state. Gay marriage exists in Massachusetts and Connecticut and gay rights advocates say they hope to see gay marriage enacted in all New England states by 2012. Even Iowa now has gay marriage.
The change in the landscape was evident in the legislative debate. This year s debate over gay marriage was emotional but not divisive. The protesters were few. The margin in the Senate 26-4 was overwhelming, especially in contrast to the 19-11 split nine years ago.
Today s environment shows the wisdom of the Supreme Court s 1999 decision. When I think of how explosive the state was in 2000, right through the 2000 elections, I can t imagine what would have happened if the court itself had imposed gay marriage in that 1999 ruling.
That summer and fall of 2000 was a scary time in the state, as the TAKE BACK VERMONT movement took shape. The state was truly divided; the legislative action creating civil unions had struck a raw nerve.
Governor Jim Douglas decision to veto the marriage bill was unexpected on a political level, even though it made sense on a personal level. At his core Douglas is very traditional. In his veto message, though, he went out of his way to encourage lawmakers to vote their conscience, sending up a bright flare that said, It s OK if you override, a sign that kept the six House Republicans who favored the bill in that position.
What was fascinating, though, was that the outcome truly was in doubt until the call of the roll. And the winning margin came from three House Democrats that few had ever heard of before Bob South of St Johnsbury, Jeff Young of St Albans and Debbie Evans of Essex.
House Speaker Shap Smith choked up with emotion as he announced the tally. It was as if he could not believe what he had just announced.
Vermont had done what no other state has enacted same sex marriage through legislative action, with no court order.
Doing so, though, a few months shy of a decade after the Vermont Supreme Court showed the way.
---------
Chris Graff, a former Vermont bureau chief of The Associated Press and host of VPT's Vermont This Week, is now vice president for communications at National Life Group. He is author of, Dateline Vermont: Covering and uncovering the newsworthy stories that shaped a state - and influenced a nation.