On Marriage and Civil Union

This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 28, 2008. It has been slightly edited from its original form.

On Marriage and Civil Union

Almost a decade ago, an issue swept through Vermont, an issue that many predicted would trigger a sea change in Vermont politics and in Vermont's political leadership.

In December, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state's marriage laws were inherently unfair to gay couples, and it told the Vermont Legislature to decide how to resolve the issue.

The legislature considered expanding the definition of marriage to include gay couples, but it eventually decided that the best solution for the time was a new institution, civil union. In April of 2000, civil union became law.

As all of this was unfolding, the Take Back Vermont effort was launched, with two planks in its platform: that native Vermonters were fighting back against flatlanders foisting unwanted changes on the state; and that the majority really didn't want civil unions, but the elected members of the government had a different agenda. Many speculated that in the elections later in 2000, incumbents would be tossed out in droves.

The first civil union license was issued in July of 2000, and by November, most Vermonters realized that civil unions would not cause the state to come crumbling down. That predicted sea change never materialized, and very little changed in Montpelier that year.

Today, it is not uncommon to still see Take Back Vermont signs dotting the rural landscape, a reminder of those interesting days. But bringing up more memories than the occasional detritus of grassroots campaigns of the past are the public hearings that the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection held since August, culminating in a final hearing held in Williston earlier this month.

The Commission is charged with studying the laws concerning same-sex unions, the families those unions form, and how to best protect those families.

Most opponents of same-sex marriage decided that the Commission was stacked against their position from the start. Rather than offer reasoned arguments against same-sex marriage, organized opposition stayed away. The most common suggestion offered, then, was to do away with civil union and do as Massachusetts has done: extend marriage to same-sex couples.

My own personal suggestion, though, is nearly the opposite. Instead of extending marriage to same-sex couples, Vermont should extend civil union to opposite-sex couples.

The reason is this: marriage is currently shared by the church and the state, creating two kinds of marriage - religious and civil. Marriage, however, should be the exclusive purview of religion. My suggestion would do just that, make marriage a religious institution only.

Today, when a couple marries in a church, there is a religious ceremony that joins the couple in the eyes of that church. At the same time, however, the celebrant signs a civil certificate that declares the couple married in the eyes of the law.

If civil marriage is eliminated, couples would still marry in a church, if they wish, and as part of the process, the celebrant would still sign a civil certificate, but one that declares the couple joined, not married, in the eyes of the law.

The idea may seem radical, but really, it is simply renaming what already happens, and in doing so, removing a primary objection to extending marriage to same-sex couples: the use of the word "marriage."

Now, there are several issues that will open up with a change such as this. For example, if you are a couple joined in civil union, same-sex or not, what box do you check on federal tax forms? What do we do with couples who are now civilly married, or with married couples who move to Vermont from out of state?

These are big questions, with implications that extend beyond our borders, and they will not be easy to answer - I certainly don't pretend to know the answers. We are, however, Vermonters, and we like a challenge.

In the end, the Commission could recommend a real sea change, or it could recommend the status quo. Either way, there will be those who will be disappointed, even angry. The important thing to remember, however, is that the Commission is not looking to make people happy. It is not looking to protect marriage or to destroy it. It is looking at how to protect Vermont families, of all types.

This is truly a worthy goal, and on that, hopefully, we all agree.