Frequently Asked Questions
- Are there legal differences between a civil union and a civil marriage?
- If same-sex couples gain the legal right to civil marriage, will churches and synagogues be forced to marry same-sex couples?
- Why change the definition of marriage?
- Isn't this issue too divisive for Vermont's communities?
- In 2000, legislators on both sides of the aisle lost their seats because they supported the civil union bill. Aren't you afraid of a political backlash?
- In what state/s can same-sex couples currently civilly marry?
- What about California?
- Which other states have a civil union law?
- Are Vermont civil unions recognized everywhere?
- Are legal marriages between same-sex in Canada, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or anywhere else they are legal recognized in Vermont?
- If Vermont allows same-sex couples to marry, will other states recognize those marriages?
- If Vermont allows same-sex couples to legally marry, will those couples have access to federal legal protections like social security survivior benefits?
1. Are there legal differences between a civil union and a civil marriage?
Yes. Although civil unions were a great step forward, they fall short of providing the full protections and benefits of marriage. Only civil marriage confers the whole host of state and federal protections whereas civil unions only consist of state protections and do not guarantee recognition out of the state. This leaves many same-sex couples vulnerable. Here are some examples of the differences:
- The word marriage is important. Being “married” is one of the benefits of civil marriage that's important to many people, gay and non-gay. The term “marriage” means something to many people who have grown up in a world where “marriage” signifies a lifetime committed partnership. “Civil union” simply doesn't pack the same punch. If we told all married, heterosexual Vermonters that starting tomorrow they would no longer be considered legally married-- that they would be called “domestic partners”-- many wouldn't want to give up the title “married.” Yet that's exactly what the laws continue to deny gay couples, even if they respect the institution of civil marriage and want to be part of it.
- Separate is always unequal. The exclusion built into the civil union law is harmful. As the Massachusetts Supreme Court acknowledged, ruling that a civil union law would be unconstitutional, “The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.” The civil union law gives same-gender couples benefits, but it still tells all gay Vermonters that our families are not fully included in the Vermont community. We don’t need a separate line for gay people at our town clerk’s office; it’s not the Vermont way.
- Civil unions fail to provide important protections. Couples joined in civil union are insecure when traveling outside of Vermont. For example,if civil union spouses Bill and Joe travel to Washington D.C. for the weekend, and Joe is seriously injured in a car accident, Bill's ability to make important medical decisions if Joe can't speak for himself is in doubt. Washington D.C.should recognize their civil union, but we know from experience that doesn't always happen. Likewise, Holly is currently the primary breadwinner in her family. If she should die, Lois, her partner of 36 years, wouldn't get Holly's social security survivor benefits, but would be left to fend for herself. This disadvantage hurts their family tremendously.Eliminating discrimination from Vermont's marriage laws won't fix these problems immediately, but it will move us much closer by eliminating a major roadblock. Vermont cannot control the discrimination of others, but we should do everything in our power to make sure Vermont is not a part of that discrimination.
2. If same-sex couples gain the legal right to civil marriage, will churches and synagogues be forced to marry same-sex couples?
No. We hope to gain full protections for our families, not to force any church or synagogue to marry same-sex couples. The bill introduced to Vermont's Legislature in 2007 did not ask any church or synagogue to recognize any marriage it does not want to. In fact, the title of this bill was "AN ACT RELATING TO PERMITTING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE CLERGY'S RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SOLEMNIZE A MARRIAGE."
The right to freedom of religion, protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ensures that no clergy person can be forced to perform a marriage, or sign a marriage certificate, against his or her faith. Also, no faith community can be forced to celebrate a marriage in violation of its religion. As a consequence, many people are legally entitled to marry, but cannot insist that they be married in a particular church, or by a particular clergy person. For example, even though an individual who has divorced has a legal right to marry, some communities of faith will not celebrate such marriages.
The religious rite of marriage DOES NOT confer any legal rights or responsibilities. The religious rite of marriage is a ceremonial rite of passage within a faith tradition, and only couples who meet the requirements of a particular faith tradition can participate in religious marriage. For more information about religious freedom and the freedom to marry download this pdf.
3. Why change the definition of marriage?
Throughout history, when we've recognized as a society that discrimination exists within our marriage laws, we have acted to change it. As a result, the institution of marriage has changed dramatically. Marriages were traditionally defined as only unions between people of the same race or religion, and as unions in which wives were the property of their husbands. Those traditional conceptions of marriage have changed to reflect American constitutional values and everyone's basic right to equality.
4. Isn't this issue too divisive for Vermont's communities?
We all remember that the discussion on this issue was difficult back in 2000, but times have changed considerably. We already have marriage rights for same-sex couples in two other states (MA,CA) and several other countries, including Canada. Vermonters have had the opportunity to get used to same-sex couples having legal recognition through the civil union law, and most feel that same-sex couples should have the legal right to marry. In fact, of the 7,000 respondents to the Doyle Poll on Town Meeting Day in 2008, 54% supported legal marriage rights for same-sex couples. And, another poll conducted in February of 2008 by a Vermont-based research firm indicated that 57% of Vermonters support legal marriage rights for same-sex couples or are leaning in that direction.
Hundreds of Vermonters turned out to the public hearings held by the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection. Nearly all of the participants supported equality, and testimony in support of marriage rights for same-sex couples outweighed the opposition 20:1. This is no longer a divisive issue and Vermont is ready for the next step. Vermonters are squarely on the side of equality.
5. In 2000, legislators on both sides of the aisle lost their seats because they supported the civil union bill. Aren't you afraid of a political backlash?
As Vermonters recognize that the sky didn't fall when the civil union bill was passed (or when marriage for same-sex couples became legal in MA and CA), and have come to understand that there is no good reason to deny same-sex couples the legal right to marry. Just like every other family, same-sex couples are concerned with paying their bills, providing for their children and strengthening their communities. Vermonters are fair-minded and want to treat their neighbors with respect. This was underscored by the fact that hundreds of supporters for marriage equality attended the public hearings held by the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition. Testimony in support of equality outweighed the opposition 20:1.
6. In what states can same-sex couples currently civilly marry?
Connecticut and Massachusetts.
On October 10th 2008, Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled that the state's civil union law violated the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law by denying same-sex couples the legal right to marry. Loving, committed same-sex couples began to marry in Connecticut on Wednesday November 12, 2008.
Massachusetts - On November 18, 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the historic case of Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. On May 18, 2004, same-sex couples began legally marrying in Massachusetts.
7. What about California?
Sadly, on Election Day 2008, the rights of Americans who live in California were taken away. Although the California Supreme Court ruled on May 15th, 2008 that the state can no longer deny same-sex couples
the legal right to marry and thousands of same-sex couples had legally married, voters took away their rights by passing Proposition 8, a bollot measure that would eliminate the right for same-sex couples to marry. The measure passed by a slim margin: 52%-48%.
The photo to the right is Phyllis Lyon, 84, and Dell Martin, 80, who were the first couple to legally marry in CA on June 16th, 2008. They had been together for 50 years. Dell passed away the following month on August 27, 2008.
[Photo Courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle]
8. Which other state/s have civil union laws?
New Hampshire and New Jersey have a civil union law. Advocates in these states are working hard to advance their states to full marriage equality.
9. Are Vermont civil unions recognized everywhere?
There is no clear answer and so far the answers from court cases in other states have been mixed. Unfortunately, civil unions are a newly created legal status that states may or may not recognize. The uncertainty leaves same-sex couples unprotected and vulnerable. We already have a marriage law that is understood and recognized by every state and around the world.
10. Are legal marriages between same-sex in Canada, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or anywhere else they are legal recognized in Vermont?
They should be, since the law has always recognize that with limited exception that don’t apply here, a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere. So far, in every case we’re aware of in which a legally married same-sex couple has sought a legal protection in Vermont that flows from that marriage, whether from a private employer, a court, or a state agency, they have succeeded. Married same-sex couples with specific questions about their legal rights should talk to a lawyer.
11. If Vermont allows same-sex couples to marry, will other states recognize those marriages?
We know that some states, like New York, will. For the reasons noted above, all other states should, but we know the road will be bumpy, and named gay or lesbian couples may still face challenges in many states. We won’t have the same security as our heterosexual neighbors until every state in this country, and the federal government, recognizes our legal marriages.
12. If Vermont allows same-sex couples to legally marry, will those couples have access to federal legal protections like social security survivior benefits?
Married same-sex couples in Vermont would be much closer to getting the important federal protection that so many families take for granted, but would still have always to go. Most people don’t realize that there are two distinct obstacles standing between committed same-sex couples and important federal protections. First, Vermont doesn’t allow us to legally marry. Second, the federal government says, even if we can marry, it won’t recognize our marriages, because of “DOMA.” If that federal law were repeated tomorrow same-sex couples still wouldn’t be entitled to social security survivor benefits for example, because Vermont doesn’t allow us to legally marry. At the same time, we can’t even challenge the federal law because Vermont doesn’t let us marry in the first place. We can’t open the door to federal protection in a single step, but full marriage equality in Vermont is an absolutely necessary step to opening that door. Vermont can’t force the federal government to sop discriminating, but we can make sure we’re not a part of that discrimination. And we can put the moral authority and persuasion of our stat laws on the side of fairness and equality.
Recent Comments