|
previous updates:
March 29, 2004
March 19, 2004
March 12, 2004
Update:
April 22, 2004
So much is happening, we thought it would make a lot of sense
to touch base and update you on highlights from Vermont and
around the country! There's too much going on to be comprehensive,
but we thought we'd give you more detail concerning a couple
of important ones. On this page:
1. Massachusetts: Update and "How To"
2. Oregon
3. Litigation in Other States
4. Anti-Marriage State Constitutional Amendments
5. Federal Marriage Amendment
6. Vermont
1. MASSACHUSETTS:
May 17 is the big day-- legal marriages begin in Massachusetts.
The lives of the many citizens who will marry in Massachusetts
that day and thereafter will shatter the myths and fears surrounding
this issue; skeptics in Massachusetts and beyond will come
to understand that affording dignity, equality, and the full
protections that only marriage can provide will enrich the
broader community without taking anything away from anyone
else.
Although anti-gay Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney continues
to threaten to find a way to ignore the Massachusetts Constitution,
and to undermine our families and our rights, we don't believe
he will succeed. Among other things, we have truth and justice
on our side. In any event, we congratulate Gay & Lesbian
Advocates & Defenders and their courageous clients for
the landmark victory in the Goodridge case. For more information,
visit www.glad.org.
We also recognize that the hard work in Massachusetts has
only just begun. We urge everyone to support our counterparts
in Massachusetts, Mass Equality, as they continue the grassroots
and political work to defeat the discriminatory constitutional
amendment preliminarily passed by the Massachusetts legislature
this year. To find out how you can help, visit www.massequality.org.
If you are thinking about marrying in Massachusetts, you'll
need to plan ahead and understand the process, the issues,
and the implications. It's more complicated than our process
in Vermont. Please visit GLAD's web site at www.glad.org/marriage/howtogetmarried.html
for more information about the logistics of marrying in Massachusetts.
If you are NOT a Massachusetts resident, we strongly urge
you to take to heart the following advice from GLAD:
Can I get married in Massachusetts if I live in another
state?
Massachusetts does not have a residency requirement for marriage,
BUT one old, local law -- dating from 1913 and never the subject
of any published Massachusetts court opinion (although it
was mentioned in a footnote in the concurring opinion in the
Goodridge case) -- says that non-residents may not marry in
Massachusetts if their marriage would be "void"
in their home state.
Some public officials have stated their intent to dust off
this old law and apply it to the marriages of same-sex couples
from other states. We hope to know by early May 2004 just
how far they intend to go. For example, it may only apply
to the 3 other states that passed laws similar to the one
in Massachusetts (that is, Illinois, Vermont, and Wisconsin),
but even then only to the extent marriages of same-sex couples
are made explicitly void in those states. Alternatively, public
officials may decide the 1913 law applies to all of the 38
so-called DOMA states that have some sort of marriage restriction.
Or it may decide that only residents of those states whose
discriminatory "DOMA" laws explicitly state a marriage
of a same-sex couple is "void" may not marry in
Massachusetts. It is also possible that officials will say
that because no other states allow same-sex couples to marry,
no same-sex couple from another state can marry in Massachusetts.
We do not assume this decision will be made solely on the
basis of the law.
GLAD thinks this is a discriminatory law. We believe there
are strong legal and constitutional arguments that Massachusetts
must allow all qualified same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts.
Especially where Massachusetts has rejected this discrimination
itself, it has a strong basis for disregarding the discriminatory
laws of other states.
But the fact is that the 1913 law exists. What is legally
justified and what the government may do could be different.
As a result, we strongly suggest that couples from other states
and countries hold off on making definite plans to marry in
Massachusetts until we know more about the state's intentions
about how, if at all, it will enforce that law against out-of-state
couples.
This is a dynamic situation, so please stay tuned. Non-Massachusetts
couples should adopt a wait-and-see attitude and not commit
to any immediate marriage plans in Massachusetts because we
do not yet know how, if at all, this law might be used against
out-of-state couples. If it is used, it will not be possible
to sort out all of the issues before licenses start issuing
to Massachusetts couples on May 17, 2004. We ask for people's
cooperation as we learn more about how the law will be enforced.
If Massachusetts officials bar the door to certain states
and you are in one of those states, we ask that you contact
us directly about next steps rather than coming to Massachusetts
and confronting this issue yourself.
back to top
2. OREGON
Portland, Oregon - The Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force
celebrates the Oregon Circuit Court decision striking down
Oregon's discrimination in marriage and ordering that state
to recognize the 3,000 same-sex marriages that have already
been performed. However, the Task Force is deeply disappointed
that the court seemed to endorse a Vermont-style "separate-but-equal"
civil union law to remedy the violation.
"We've tried civil unions in Vermont; we know firsthand
that they fall far short of genuine equality," explained
Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force Chair Sherry Corbin. "The
Oregon Court was right that discrimination against families
formed by gay couples is wrong; that's why we should be allowed
to legally marry, just like our friends, neighbors, and family.
The 3,000 same-sex marriages in Oregon aren't hurting anyone--
why not keep the door open to genuine equality for everyone?"
The case has moved unusually quickly: The American Civil
Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of nine same-sex
couples and Basic Rights Oregon on March 24; the parties argued
the case on April 16; the court decided the case on April
20. In its decision, the court found that the state could
not continue to discriminate in marriage against same-sex
couples, concluding that such discriminatino violated the
state's equal protection guarantees. The court ordered the
state to recognize the 3,000 marriages that have already taken
place in Oregon, but also ordered Multnomah County to stop
issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The court did
not decide how Oregon must treat same-sex couples going forward;
instead it gave the state legislature the opportunity either
to extend marriage to same-sex couples or to devise a system
of civil unions like Vermont's. The court said that Multnomah
County should resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples if the legislature does not come up with a remedy
for the discrimination within 90 days of the next legislative
session, whether regular or special.
Beth Robinson, co-counsel to the Plaintiffs in Vermont's
Baker v. State case, expressed her ambivalence. "The
Oregon court seems to have fallen into the same trap as the
Vermont Supreme Court-- the mistaken belief that the 'benefits'
of legal marriage can somehow be carved off from the legal
status of being married. For a whole lot of people, both gay
and heterosexual, the legal status of being married is one
of the important benefits of marriage. Plus, the message of
separation and exclusion built into a 'civil union style'
law is a slap in the face to hard working, law abiding gay
and lesbian citizens and our families.
For more information, see www.aclu.org.
back to top
3. LITIGATION
IN OTHER STATES
Massachusetts and Oregon do not stand alone. Marriage litigation
has advanced to the New Jersey Supreme Court, see www.lambdalegal.org
for details, and new cases have been filed in Washington (see
www.lambdalegal.org)
, California (www.nclrights.org),
and New York (www.lambdalegal.org)
(www.aclu.org)
. Stay tuned.
4. ANTI-MARRIAGE
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
While we're seeing great movement forward in many states,
we're also seeing movement backwards in others. A number of
state legislatures, including Kentucky and Wisconsin, have
passed anti-gay constitutional amendments that would prohibit
same-sex marriage and in many cases are so broad that they
would prohibit civil unions and even domestic partnership
benefits for same-sex couples. Some of these amendments are
on their way to the voters (see www.kentuckyfairness.org)
, and some require further legislative action (see www.actionwisconsin.org)
This list is NOT complete.
back to top
5. FEDERAL
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
All of our hard fought gains, and all we have yet to accomplish,
remain at risk. A federal constitutional amendment adding
discrimination IN to the constitution would be unprecedented
and catastrophic.
The following report is from the Human Rights Campaign web
site, www.hrc.org:
The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would amend the U.S.
Constitution to restrict individual rights. It would change
the 200-year-old document to stipulate that marriage is only
between a man and a woman. The proposal, introduced last year
by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., in the House of Representatives
has more than 100 co-sponsors. A Senate version, introduced
by and Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., has more than five co-sponsors.
For a constitutional amendment to become law, two-thirds
of the Senate and House of Representatives must pass it. Then,
three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 states must ratify it, either
by action of the legislatures or by popular vote. Most Americans,
however, oppose such an amendment, according to several major
polls.
It is still unclear just how discriminatory the proposed
amendment is. On March 22, 2004, its authors announced that
they were re-wording its language to clarify that it would
allow states to establish civil unions or other partnership
arrangements for same-sex couples. But the Human Rights Campaign
and other opponents say it remains dangerously ambiguous.
A White House spokesman said that President Bush, who endorsed
the proposal a month earlier, concurs with the new wording.
On March 23, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a
hearing, "A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Preserve
Traditional Marriage." Earlier in the month, the committee's
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property
Rights held a hearing, "Judicial Activism vs. Democracy:
What are the National Implications of the Massachusetts Goodridge
Decision and the Judicial Invalidation of Traditional Marriage
Laws?"
House Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., voiced his support
for the amendment in June 2003. And President Bush called
a rare White House news conference to announce his backing.
"Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and
to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our
Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of
a man and woman as husband and wife," said Bush at the
Feb. 24, 2004, event. He also criticized the "activist
judges and local officials [who] have made an aggressive attempt
to redefine marriage."
back to top
6. VERMONT
Make no mistake about it, OUR WORK IS NOT DONE.
Anti-gay organization Take it to the People is actively organized
to promote the federal marriage amendment in Vermont. See
www.takeittothepeople.org.
Their web site features a photo of an outspoken anti-gay activist
associated with TIP alongside Catholic Bishop Angell and Vermont
Governor Jim Douglas. They are determined to undermine our
families and our civil rights. We must continue the hard work
that has brought us this far.
In the meantime, the civil union compromise remains a less-than-equal
step toward equality. We must continue to educate our fellow
Vermonters about the reality of our lives, and the importance
of inclusion, civil rights, and our families.
If you'd like to get involved, please email the Vermont Freedom
to Marry Task Force at info@vtfreetomarry.org.
back to top
VFMTF Homepage
|
