Symington and Shumlin didn’t pull this issue out of thin air. Freedom-to-marry advocates have stepped up our advocacy considerably in the past couple of years, and have been pressing them hard. Recognizing that it wasn’t right to back-burner an important civil rights issue indefinitely, but understandably cautious about their broader legislative agenda, these leaders chose a path that would nudge our struggle forward by facilitating a public conversation, while keeping it outside of the statehouse for the balance of this biennium. They made it clear that the Legislature would not be taking up the issue in 2008, but agreed to set in motion a grassroots-level process that would provide a forum for Vermonters to discuss the issue. It was really a modest, though critically important step. Civil Rights Are Important I’ve been most surprised by the suggestion by some on the left (many of whom claim to support same-sex marriage, and most of whom enjoy (and have exercised) their own legal right to marry) that even a volunteer commission with no power to take any action is too much attention to devote to considering our exclusionary marriage laws. This notion is shocking. They may just be focusing narrowly on the trees, ignoring the forest that many progressive visionaries usually understand. The freedom to marry issue in Vermont is not just about moving us closer to securing for same-sex couples all the vital family protections that our heterosexual counterparts take for granted. It’s not just about making the dignity and history of civil marriage available to same-sex couples who choose it. It’s not even just about committed same-sex couples who want to marry. Rather, it’s an essential component of a broader civil rights movement. The NAACP didn’t take on the unpopular cause of eliminating the ban on interracial marriage in the 1960s because interracial couples were lining up in droves to marry. Nor did the NAACP focus on interracial marriage primarily because they were concerned about health insurance or social security survivor benefits for interracial couples. They tackled the issue because they understood the power of our marriage laws to perpetuate and reinforce racial division. They understood that a successful civil rights movement must tackle all the central spheres of our collective lives—including commerce (Civil Rights Act ), political access (Voting Rights Act), education (Brown v. Board), and laws regulating marriage and family—like the ban on interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia). The main civil rights struggle of this generation involves gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (glbt) Americans. And, once again, all the pieces are connected. What we can do here in Vermont to help the effeminate kid in Kentucky who has no legal protection from homophobic bullying on the playground, or the employee in South Dakota who’s at risk of losing his job because he’s gay, or the lesbian mother in Georgia fearful of losing custody of her child if she comes out, is to continue to lead. Vermont has the opportunity, and responsibility, to make a critical difference by doing what we can to push the envelope of this civil rights movement to it’s necessary conclusion: genuinely equal rights for glbt citizens. It’s our contribution to the pressing civil rights movement of our time. The Commission Is Politically Wise Symington and Shumlin’s creation of a commission wasn’t just the right thing to do; it was a politically wise thing to do. They created a way to move the conversation along in Vermont’s communities without spending a single tax dollar and without diverting any legislative time. The alternative would have seen freedom to marry advocates back in the Statehouse next year pressing for action—a much more distracting scenario. Those who suggest that the commission plays into the hands of Symington’s and Shumlin’s political rivals forget just how much times have changed since 2000. We’re bordered on two sides by jurisdictions in which same-sex couples can marry. Opposition to Vermont’s civil union law has receded to a small, albeit vocal minority. Most Vermonters aren’t bothered if the two men or two women who live next door make a lifetime commitment to one another, and they’re fine with the law treating their neighbors as equals. That’s not to say that we won’t face opposition, but most Vermonters—including a strong majority of self-identified independents-- believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. And many Vermonters are committed to working hard to support political leaders who support our civil rights— far from detracting from other issues, the conversation about the freedom to marry has the potential to strengthen and broaden a progressive coalition in this state. The beauty of the commission and the incremental approach that it represents is that it will enable all of us to see where the opposition is coming from, and how strong it is, as well as where most Vermonters are. Many peoples’ reactions to the resurgence of the issue are grounded in conventional wisdom based on events from seven years ago. The commission process, and the public reaction to it, will give us all a better picture of where Vermont is today as we consider our options moving forward. The Time Is Right Some folks have criticized the timing of the commission-- another way of asserting that the issue isn’t important, or the politics are disadvantageous. For those who fear the politics of the issue so much that they don’t want to even restart the conversation, or those who don’t value the civil rights advance we seek, the time will never seem right. There will always be a legislative majority or super-majority to build or protect, there will always be an incumbent Governor to protect or oust (or perhaps an open seat), and there will always be an election on the horizon. Let’s Work Together I hope we can work together as part of a broader progressive agenda. Freedom to marry advocates are Vermonters, too. We care about the environment, health care, education, energy, taxes, and the quality of life here in Vermont. We see the marriage commission, and the conversation it will engender, as reinforcing these values. What will undermine all of our collective goals is if we splinter and divide, or if we misdirect our frustration with a Governor who doesn’t share many of our values toward Democratic leaders who trying to do the right thing, and the wise thing. Thanks for reading! |
