Yesterday, the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection (really? That’s it’s name? I testified before it and didn’t even realize that that was it’s name) released its final report yesterday. As was known all along, the commission was never intended to provide a recommendation of any sort.
The basic summary of the report doesn’t provide any information that isn’t obvious to anyone who’s not an idiot or blinded by bigotry, but I’ll summarize just in case. Per The Rutland Herald:
Although it didn’t make a specific recommendation on same-sex marriage, the report suggests that lawmakers look closely at some other relating issues, including Massachusetts’ experience since legalizing same-sex marriage, easing the state income tax system for gay and lesbian couples, the impact of raising children by same-sex couples, and what to do with those who have civil unions if the state moved toward full marriage rights.
“The commission recommends that Vermont take seriously the differences between civil marriage and civil union in terms of their practical and legal consequences for Vermont’s civil union couples and their families,” the report concludes. “Their testimony and the testimony of their friends and supporters was sincere, direct, impassioned and compelling. Act 91 represents Vermont’s commitment to the constitutional equality and fairness for these citizens and Vermont should preserve and protect that commitment.”
And to me, this is the relevant thing. I don’t care about the commission’s recommendations or lack thereof. I do care about the testimony. What I saw of it (and live blogged about at the time) was, quite frankly, astonishing. It wasn’t just that people talked about same sex marriage, but they talked about it without getting booed or catcalled. They talked about events in their lives honestly and openly and the stories were incredible (the report itself is quite long (35 pages) and only contains excerpts from the testimony, but can be downloaded here.)
I will, however, present an interesting contrast. From the testimony of Linda Maloney, an Episcopal Priest:
It goes without saying that the laws of the state should not be dictated by the principles of any one religion. State laws are for the good order of the state and the benefit of its citizens, and must not favor one group over another. So I think it is not valid to argue that marriage should be only between a man and woman because the Bible or other religious tradition says it must be so.
From the testimony of Rose Lepeltier:
I realize that a union between two consenting males or two consenting females does not at first view seem abusive or harmful as some other forms of sexual behavior which are legally prosecuted, but for our government to officially and legally open the door to accept and promote a behavior that goes against God’s warnings is clearly to invite distress in days to come.
From Donald and Lynette Cutting:
We are Biblically opposed to homosexual marriage and civil unions, not because we hate homosexuals but because we do hate the sin they are in, because God does. What they are doing is in complete opposition to God’s moral laws as stated in the Bible in many places. It also erodes the country, as families fall apart and there is more crime and heartbreak, kids committing suicide, using drugs, having sex and babies out of wedlock – all because we are not following God’s moral laws.
And really, this is what it’s all about: people want their government to enforce their religious beliefs.
I think it’s time we stop catering to this increasingly small minority and just say you know, there’s no valid reason to oppose same-sex marriage, and there’s no reason to subject the constitution to the whims of those who think its role is to support their beliefs to the detriment of all others.