A photo on the front page of Tuesday’s Burlington Free Press captured a lighthearted moment from yesterday’s swearing-in ceremony of Vermont Supreme Court Justice Beth Robinson. The 46-year-old lawyer and gay rights advocate is responsible for the fact that same-sex couples can marry in Vermont.

To Robinson’s left is Gov. Peter Shumlin, the guy who appointed her to the bench and for whom she has served as legal counsel for the past year.

To Robinson’s right? The picture shows a smiling woman — with a camera — sharing a laugh with Robinson. But the caption doesn’t identify her. Not a whisper. And she is, of course, Robinson’s wife: Dr. Kym Boyman.

Normally such an omission would be no big deal. Standard, even. But the irony of this one can’t be ignored.

Robinson has spent most of her professional life trying to get Vermont to recognize gay and lesbian relationships. She made a convincing case for civil unions before the Vermont Supreme Court in 1999. Then she masterminded the lobbying effort that led the legislature to pass same-sex marriage into law in 2009.

That Robinson’s own partner remains nameless in a photo that otherwise perfectly documents her personal odyssey proves there’s still work to be done.

If that was Mr. Robinson sitting next to Vermont’s newest supreme court justice, do you think a copy editor would have tracked down the photographer to confirm his identity? No doubt.  

Justice for all? Not yet.

This article appears in Nov 30 – Dec 6, 2011.

Paula Routly is publisher, editor-in-chief and cofounder of Seven Days. Her first glimpse of Vermont from the Adirondacks led her to Middlebury College for a closer look. After graduation, in 1983 she moved to Burlington and worked for the Flynn, the Vanguard Press, the Burlington Free Press and Vermont Times – in that order. In 1995, she and Pamela Polston started Seven Days newspaper. Routly ran the business and built the news side of the operation, which she edited for years. She has spearheaded...

19 replies on “Who’s Sitting Next to Vermont Supreme Court Justice Beth Robinson in Tuesday’s Burlington Free Press? Her Wife!”

  2. I never accused the Free Press of homophobia! I was simply pointing out the irony of this particular omission, which is “standard” — as in, it happens a lot — but not policy. People in newspaper photos are supposed to be identified, especially when they are front and center, as Dr. Boyman is, both literally and figuratively. I did email photographer Glenn Russell to ask him if she requested anonymity. He responded: No, she didn’t; he forgot to include her info when he sent the photo to the Free Press. When I asked if an editor — or copy editor — called back to ask for it, he did not respond. There’s no conspiracy here, folks, or breaking news. It’s just an observation. As “Robert” says above, “Despite the strides for equality, LGBT people aren’t quite there yet.”

  4. Oh come on; I don’t like the BFP either, but this accusation is just crazy! Her wife was mentioned (and quoted!) in the article. The omission in the photo caption clearly wasn’t intentional, or if it was, it’s not homophobic. Furthermore she IS in all the photo captions in the online article (which is where most people read the news these days). See http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20111128/NEWS03/111128020/Same-sex-marriage-advocate-joins-Vermont-Supreme-Court

  5. Invisible? The spouse wasn’t invisible. Her photo was in the newspaper. The fact that they failed to identify her in the caption is indicative of . . . absolutely nothing.I daresay, you’re supposed to actually read the story, not just look at the pictures. The story itself mentions that Boyman is Robinson’s wife, and even quotes her. BTW, I don’t see anywhere in this piece that any attempt was made to contact the BPF or the photographer or Terri Hallenbeck (or Beth Robinson) before publishing an accusation that they are somehow either homophobic or insensitive or politically incorrect.

  6. The implication isn’t that the Freeps hates the gays. It’s that despite the strides for equality, LGBT people aren’t quite there yet. For example, their spouses are invisible. PS, what difference does it make that you were there? And who are you again?

  7. Attempt to create a controversy where none exists, much? Holy christ, you leap to a conclusion of homophobia because they don’t identify someone in a picture? Really? PS, I was present at the ceremony in question.

  8. If it is a Free Press standard not to regularly include names in their captions, why is this news? The only irony and injustice is that Seven Days thinks their readership actually enjoys the weekly dose of Freeps sniping.

  9. Seriously? I suppose that’s why the Free Press wrote about all those same sex couples stories before and after the marriage act was passed, because their homophobes?? Might be sloppy on their part, but this is ridiculous. I’d like some real news now please.

  10. Paula. Maybe the freeps did not consider it newsworthy as it would be expected that Dr. Boyman would be there,compared to it was newsworthy when Dr. Steinberg attended Howard Deans functions, because it happened rarely.Hows that for some fun spin?

Comments are closed.