A More Perfect Union? | LGBTQ | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice

Seven Days needs your financial support!

A More Perfect Union? 

Two Seven Days staffers weigh the pros and cons of another gay marriage debate in Vermont

Published January 7, 2009 at 6:10 a.m.


It’s been almost nine years since then-Gov. Howard Dean signed into law H.847, the controversial bill establishing civil unions in Vermont and granting same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples. Since then, more than 8700 gay and lesbian couples have entered into Vermont civil unions, which are now recognized by many Western countries, though not by most U.S. states or the federal government.

At the time of its passage, Vermont’s civil-union compromise was sometimes touted as a model for other states. But even then, many Vermonters saw it as a Faustian bargain, as unjust and discriminatory as the “separate but equal” rationale for racial segregation; few remember that the first line of the act defines marriage as “a union between a man and a woman.”

Since then, other states have adopted far more inclusive language, granting same-sex couples the same legal right to marry as male-female couples. In recent months, particularly after the passage of California’s Prop. 8 banned same-sex marriages in that state, there’s been much talk of revisiting Vermont’s gay marriage debate and finishing the work that was started a decade ago.

Clearly, today’s political and economic climate is different from that of 2000. On the one hand, it’s a time of innovation. The United States is about to inaugurate its first African-American chief executive, the culmination of one of its longest, most expensive and most contested presidential campaigns — one that was literally defined by the idea of “change.”

On the other hand, the public, the media and governments at all levels are squarely focused on other daunting problems: global warming, energy insecurity, spiraling health-care costs, ballooning deficits and the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression. In short, it’s also a time of retrenchment. There’s much to do and limited time and money to do it.

Arguments for and against gay marriage are already showing up on editorial pages throughout the state. But in an effort to provide a more intimate and unusual overview of the issue, Seven Days listens in on a conversation between two of its staffers who are directly affected by the debate. Creative Director Don Eggert and Online Editor Cathy Resmer consider whether now is an opportune time to revisit this issue in Vermont. While Eggert asserts that there’s never been a better time to capitalize on the national momentum for change, Resmer argues that more urgent issues need to be addressed first.

The two are friends and have much in common. Both are gay and in committed relationships. Both have been politically active for years in Vermont’s LGBT community, though they are not full-time activists. And while neither was directly involved in the original campaign to enact civil unions, both supported it — and support the concept of gay marriage on principle.

Eggert, 32, moved to Vermont in 1994 to attend Middlebury College. He came out in his freshman year and immediately got involved in campus politics. At the time, Eggert says he wasn’t very interested in the gay-marriage issue, as he was more cynical about marriage in general — his own parents divorced after 27 years. Instead, he worked to create RU12?, the Burlington-based community center for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Vermonters.

“We didn’t feel a need to do the same thing that straight people do,” Eggert remembers. “We were trying to be a little more radical, and advocating for [gay] marriage didn’t seem radical at the time. It felt very mainstream.”

Resmer, 33, attended Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, a staunchly conservative Southern college. She also came out in college and was active in a gay support group on campus, which met in secret.

“The climate on our campus was very toxic,” Resmer recalls. “At one point, The Princeton Review named W&L the second-most homophobic campus in the country.”

After graduation, Resmer moved to Burlington, where she got involved in Outright Vermont, going around to public schools and speaking about her experiences coming out as a lesbian. She landed her first writing gig with Out in the Mountains, the now-defunct LGBT publication, where she met Eggert, who was then the paper’s art director. She later worked with Eggert to establish RU12?

In May 2000, Resmer was hired as a dorm counselor at Rock Point School in Burlington. Though she and her live-in partner, Ann-Elise Johnson, hadn’t planned to get civil unioned — at the time, they were in their mid-twenties and had been together just two years — Resmer asked her new boss if romantic partners could live together in the dorm. They could, provided they were married or in a civil union. For Resmer and her partner, the decision was largely based on simple economics: They couldn’t afford two apartments, and getting a civil union saved them $10,000 a year.

On the night of their civil union in August 2000, Resmer’s father, a conservative Catholic, took her aside and said, “I wouldn’t have voted for civil unions, but I’m glad you are happy.” While her parents weren’t entirely comfortable with the idea at the time, they now speak about that party as “Cathy’s wedding” and have come to see her union as a marriage, just like any other. Resmer fully expects that one day the State of Vermont will do the same. But for her, it’s not a high priority.


SEVEN DAYS: Shortly after Vermont adopted civil unions, many in the gay community made a point of referring to them as “civil unions” and not “marriages.” Was this because they were seen as an intermediate step?

DON EGGERT: I think people felt the need to keep saying the words “civil union”, so that people would start accepting it socially, among gays and straights, like, “This is what we’re calling it, and let’s just go with it.” We still hadn’t yet figured out what to call a civil union divorce. No one really wanted to discuss that. There was a whole new vocabulary [required]. If we’re going to live with this compromise, let’s start owning the word.

CATHY RESMER: Part of it, too, frankly, is it’s not a marriage. And it’s important for me to draw that distinction with my relatives, because I don’t think they understand how much privilege comes with getting married. We have all the same rights and benefits in the state of Vermont that married couples do. But federally, it’s a different story. On my federal tax returns, I still check “single.” Ann-Elise is not eligible for my Social Security money if I were to die. There are a whole host of federal benefits we would get if we were married that we do not get because we are civil unioned.

SD: So, why not support changing the law as quickly as possible?

CR: Do I support gay marriage? Yes, absolutely. I want to be married, and I deserve that same right that you and everyone else who is straight has. But I don’t want to be a political football anymore, me or my family. Though I wasn’t directly involved in the gay-marriage fight, you couldn’t not be involved in it as a gay person in Vermont. Everywhere you went . . . people asked your opinion. But also, people proclaimed their opinions.

SD: How would it change things for you if the gay-marriage debate arose again?

CR: Right now, I can look around my street in Winooski where we live, and none of my elderly Catholic neighbors has signs up opposing gay marriage, and I don’t have any signs up supporting gay marriage. And we all get along great. We shovel each other’s driveways and we pitch in on neighborhood-watch activities and we suffer together and commiserate when our taxes go up and whatnot. I have my rights; they have their beliefs. We’re agreeing not to talk about this issue that we disagree on. And I’m OK with that. I don’t want to go through what we went through in 1999 and 2000 with the civil-union debate again, because there are so many issues that require us to come together right now to solve really big problems. I don’t want to divide us needlessly.

SD: Don, is that a fair criticism?

DE: I tried to stay out of the debate the first time around, and I know exactly what Cathy is talking about. I was lucky to be living in Burlington and not experiencing what people in rural areas were, with the huge “Take Back Vermont” signs. But I definitely felt unsafe at the time. No one said anything to me personally, but you kept hearing stories . . . It’d be in the press a lot. It went from being exciting to nerve-wracking, and you did feel like a political football, where your life was very exposed.

SD: That would still be a risk, wouldn’t it?

DE: I certainly don’t want that to happen again, and I don’t believe it will. Maybe I’m being really optimistic. Since civil unions have passed . . . there was the initial bad time of the entire state being up in arms about it. Then it dissipated. The sky didn’t fall, and years passed and all these other states are trying to do what we did, and Massachusetts did . . . I just don’t feel like there’s a compelling reason not to have it changed to gay marriage.

SD: Whether Vermont calls them civil unions or gay marriages, once you leave the state you’re still single, and whatever rights you have go away. What would change for you?

DE: For me specifically, nothing short-term, because I’m not civil unioned and I don’t know when or if I’ll get civil unioned or married. But I’d like to have the right to do so. When I go home and talk about civil unions to my family in Syracuse and say, “I went to a civil union party,” they really don’t understand what I’m talking about. I have to explain what it is. It’s so much easier to just say, “I went to a wedding.” I’ve started doing that, straight or gay . . . I don’t really ever say “civil union.” So, to see it on forms and in debates . . . it’s this separate-but-equal thing. I don’t understand why there has to be this whole separate institution designed for me when everyone else can just get married.

SD: Do you think it would be as easy as changing the words “civil union” to “marriage”?

DE: I would hope that can happen. I feel like it means a lot for people who live here to just take that one last step and say, “Really, we are all equal. We don’t have to have this separate designation.” And for Vermont to join Massachusetts and other states that are going to pass [gay marriage]. We’re never going to get the federal benefits . . . until many states do this. And in some states, it’s going to take forever, or a really long time, because they have to change their constitutions.

SD: If you’re skeptical about marriage in general, why is it important for you to say that you can “marry”?

DE: It’s a choice issue, like any other choice issue. Being able to have the right to do it is different than actually agreeing with it or wanting to do it. I can say I’m pro-choice, but I don’t think I’ll ever get an abortion or get a woman pregnant. But I hope that my sister or mother or friend will have that choice . . . As I get older and have roots in the community, I know more and more people who want to get married, who are raising kids and doing all the things that people do who want to stay together. And to not be able to get married is kind of a slap in the face.

CR: He’s fighting for my right to get married!

DE: I just don’t buy the “not now” argument . . . From what the polls say, people in Vermont are pro-gay marriage and have come around since civil unions were created. And I personally feel like it’s a good time now because there’s so much momentum around change, and having Barack Obama elected president, regardless of how he feels about civil unions or gay marriage, has gotten a lot of people motivated and activated. There’s been a lot of apathy in the last eight years, both locally and nationally, and I feel like now there’s an opportunity to finish the job at a time when everything is on the upswing. Of course, I’m not ignoring the dire economic situation, but politically, I feel like it’s an opportune moment. I know the people who are working on this issue . . . and I’m confident they’ve done the hard work. It’s been a long time, and we’ve been patient.

SD: Cathy, why should gay and lesbian couples wait? Why not capitalize on this historic moment?

CR: Maybe I’m on the wrong side of history . . . I believe that opinions have changed in Vermont, but I don’t feel as though they’ve changed as much as gay-marriage proponents would lead you to believe. I hope that everyone proves me wrong and that they have, in fact, changed. But my gut feeling is that they haven’t. I am reluctant to support an effort that is largely symbolic. What would happen in Vermont is really not going to change my rights or anyone else’s rights in civil unions. It’s a semantic change. It’s an important one, but ultimately a symbolic change. And I am reluctant to reopen these wounds and spend political capital pushing this at a time when we have so many pressing issues to confront.

SD: Could reviving this issue right now backfire, especially if people feel that every minute the legislature spends on it is one not spent on more urgent business?

CR: I think it is a distraction and, more importantly, it’s a distraction of the public. It’s not so much the legislature that’s being distracted. It’s their constituents who are being distracted by an issue that’s been dormant all these years and makes them suddenly speak out . . . You have a limited amount of time and energy to get people to focus on issues, and if we’re going to do that, I want them to focus on issues that are more meaningful to me and my family and people I know in Vermont, such as making sure we all have health care. I don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t push for marriage. We should . . . If we didn’t have civil unions right now, I’d be pushing for marriage. But because we have civil unions and we have those rights, I do not feel discriminated against by the State of Vermont.

DE: I would agree that the change we’re asking for is a symbolic change. But in some ways, I think that makes it easier to pass. Maybe I’m being too naïve or optimistic, but it’s sort of like we forgot to cross that T. Let’s just say it’s done and move on.

CR: It didn’t feel like that at the time. To many people, it was this really hard-fought compromise that they can live with and we can live with. It gives us our rights, and it gives them whatever peace of mind they need to have.

DE: So everybody wins?

CR: No. Everybody loses a little bit. That was the deal. That’s what compromise is. Nobody got exactly what they wanted. And I feel that that’s what’s letting us live . . . in this relative harmony in our state. It’s not that the tide has suddenly shifted so that 90 percent of Vermonters believe we should have gay marriage. It’s that we’ve managed to strike a compromise that we can all live with. Real change takes time. It takes a lot of time. And I don’t believe that we’re going to have the kind of majority that we should have to push for marriage for a while yet.

DE: But I don’t know what would be a good time. What would bring it up? If all the states around us had gay marriage and we still had this antiquated Vermont phrasing? I think Vermonters can handle it. I think by now they at least know somebody who has a civil union in their community, and they probably know those people are good people and their relationship looks a lot like theirs. I hear about debates in other states, where the extreme religious right has a stronghold, and I just don’t see that here.

SD: And it wouldn’t cost a dime.

DE: Some people say it would benefit us from a tourism standpoint, and people will come here to get married the way they did when we got civil unions. This last election was a kick in the pants for me . . . I have friends in California, and . . . I think a lot of people assumed [Prop. 8] would fail, and gay marriages would continue to happen in California as they had for months. And this was a big wake-up call for them and the rest of us: You can’t assume everything is going to be fine. I just feel like I’ve been complacent for a while and my life has been relatively comfortable . . . I’m not going to campaign in California or move to a state that’s having this battle and try to help them. I’m going to do what I can here.

SD: What about the loss of “political capital” Cathy speaks of?

DE: A lot of legislators lost their jobs after the last initial vote eight years ago, and many of them got it back after a term. And I’m sure that’s going through their heads right now . . . From my perspective, I don’t think Douglas has done a lot as governor, and when issues like this come up, people want to hear what his opinion is. I don’t know what he’ll do, but if he makes the wrong decision, people are going to hold him accountable, and it could mean him losing his governorship, if it ruffles the feathers of Vermonters who are pro-equality.

CR: I don’t think that’ll happen, and I think he’d veto [gay] marriage. And I think he’ll still get elected. Fifty-five percent of Vermonters voted for him in this election, and I don’t think enough of them are going to abandon him over this.

SD: It’s interesting that the LGBT community wants to use a word that has such a checkered history — one that evolved from an institution where women were conveyed as property and used for forging political alliances to today’s notion of demonstrating eternal love.

DE: If there were a better word, I’d go for it. But it’s the word that means something to most people. It’s not going to make marriage better to have gay people getting married. I’m not saying that. And I’m not saying it’s going to help everyone to have the option to get married. But the way our legal structure is about getting married and getting divorced and dealing with kids and property, it’s just part of being a citizen.

SD: Cathy, shouldn’t Vermont keep pushing this issue ahead to help other states, and eventually the federal government, adopt gay marriage?

CR: It’s got to happen in those individual states. They have to have the same fight we had. It’s something they have to go through to get to the place where we are now. We already went through that fight. We already did that hard work. We got to a certain point, and I want the rest of the country to focus on other people doing it and let us focus on other issues.

DE: I’m sure people around the country are using Vermont and Massachusetts as examples of [how] everything is OK.

CR: As well they should, because it is. So why do we need to change it?

DE: Because we don’t want other states arguing for civil unions. We want them arguing for marriage, so they don’t have to go through what we’re going through right now and have this debate twice. Let them use us as an example and say, “They wish they’d called it gay marriage from the beginning.”

CR: I agree with you. And I want all these other states to do that, so it’s shorter and painless when we finally do say, “Yeah, let’s change it to marriage.” Vermont doesn’t need to lead the way. We already did that. It’s OK with me if we’re, like, the 15th state to add gay marriage, versus the second or third . . . Now that I have two kids, when I think about who my allies are, I feel like I’m more allied with families with young children than I am with LGBT activists.

SD: That’s not surprising, considering where you are in your life.

CR: Which is not to say that LGBT issues are not important to me. They are. But if I’m looking at a list of priorities of things I’d like to see changed in this state, the one at the top is not gay marriage. It’s the budget deficit, access to health care, global warming, energy independence. There are 15 things in front of “changing my civil union to marriage” . . . My blood does not boil when I think about this issue. I want it to change, and I have no doubt in my mind that it will change and that one day we will have gay marriage in Vermont. But I just don’t feel that same sense of urgency.

DE: But anti-gay marriage inititives are still being used nationally . . . to make people take sides and get into this ignorant, tumultuous debate. I want the gay marriage debate to be over! I want it to be law, and, if everyone could just get married, we couldn’t be used as a political football to lose presidential elections. It’s become this abortion issue that makes people and states take sides and moves parties to bring up or not bring up this issue.

SD: Do you think it’s not going to go away as an issue until Vermont stops calling them civil unions?

DE: It’s not going to go away here. People have already invested lots of time, money and effort into finishing the job. We’re just one part of the whole national movement. People aren’t going to like to hear that, but it’s true. I’d like to move on to other debates. Although I appreciate how Vermonters put Vermont first when it comes to politics and social change, ever since California passed Prop. 8, I feel like we can’t discount how passing gay marriage in our little state can have a positive impact on the national debate.

CR: I totally agree with you that any time gay marriage comes up, it forces people to take sides. That’s why I don’t want to bring it up again here. I want people to continue living in this détente, because I believe the longer we live this way, the easier it’ll be to make the switch. I think part of it is generational . . . most of the people who opposed civil unions are older. The younger people are for gay marriage. I agree, there’s a point at which we stop waiting. I just don’t think we’ve reached that point yet.

Take our poll:

The Activists in Their Own Words

Steve Cable, president of the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, Rutland:

We think that gay marriage is a terrible agenda to bring forward at this time . . . According to every legal expert who testified last year before the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection, there is not one more legal benefit that Vermont can provide gay and lesbian couples by going to gay marriage . . . “Civil unions didn’t redefine marriage in 2000. In fact, civil unions enforced the man-and-woman, mom-and-dad definition. What we’re talking about now is fundamentally redefining marriage to genderless marriage, where gender doesn’t matter. What that means is that . . . a mom or dad would now be considered insignificant for a child conceived and born in a marriage . . . If we take the biological out of marriage, the parentage law gets very confused . . .

“What we’re talking about are sociological and demographic changes that happen over a generation. If you look at the Netherlands, Spain, Canada and Vermont, we have some of the lowest birth rates in the world and some of the lowest marriage rates in the world. So, by moving in this direction and then redefining what marriage is, we’re saying marriage isn’t as important as it once was . . .

“Marriage is not a civil right. You’ve always needed a license and needed to qualify. It’s always been restricted. Why? Because that’s where most children come from.”


Beth Robinson, attorney, co-founder and chair of Vermont Freedom to Marry, Middlebury:

“The notion that civil unions deliver the benefits of marriage just by another name ignores the fundamental reality that, in the world we live in, the legal status of being married is an incredible benefit, both from a personal perspective and a social perspective. And to suggest that somehow you can have the benefits of marriage without the legal status of being married is oxymoronic . . .

“When people say, ‘It’s just a word,’ they fail to recognize the power of words to communicate, meaning both to people themselves and to the broader community. And that will have an immediate impact on the lives of a lot of Vermonters, in the way they view themselves and the way the broader culture views them . . .

“We know there are states that aren’t recognizing civil unions that are recognizing same-sex marriages, New York being the most important example, and a significant example because it borders on Vermont. That isn’t to say that if same-sex couples can legally marry in Vermont that that will instantly be recognized in every state in the country. But we’ll certainly have a leg up relative to where we are now, and we’ll be part of broader momentum nationally . . .

“This is not only not a bad time but a perfect time for the legislature to address these issues. This is a going to be a tough year, and this legislature is going to make a whole lot of difficult and unpopular decisions. No matter what happens, they’re going to be cutting incredibly important services or benefits to Vermonters and/or raising revenues through taxes, fees or other sources to a degree that we haven’t seen in decades. In the face of that, the opportunity for this legislature to do something that doesn’t cost a penny, and that, if anything, is going to enhance our revenues and help our economy, and make the lives of some Vermonters significantly better is a gift. It’s not something to be feared.”

Gay Marriage Timeline

  • May 5, 1993: The Hawaii Supreme Court rules in Baehr v. Miike that a state law barring same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. The ruling prompts members of Congress to introduce federal legislation prohibiting states from forcing other states to recognize their same-sex unions.
  • September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs into law the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Although states are still free to legalize gay and lesbian marriages, the act specifically says that all federal laws dealing with married people apply to heterosexual couples only.
  • July 22, 1997: Three same-sex couples — Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan, Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles, and Lois Farnham and Holly Puterbaugh — sue the State of Vermont, as well as the towns of Milton, Shelburne and South Burlington, after their applications for marriage licenses are denied by town clerks. A Chittenden Superior Court ruling in favor of the state is immediately appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
  • December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court rules in Baker v. State that the state is “constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law.” The court orders the legislature either to allow same-sex couples to marry or to come up with a parallel “domestic partnership” system, granting comparable legal rights and protections.
  • January 28, 2000: Senator Julius Canns (R-Caledonia) introduces a bill in the Vermont Senate to amend the state constitution in an effort to thwart the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage rights. Though the amendment, which would have defined marriage as “a special label for a partnership between a man and a woman,” fails, similar language is later included in Vermont’s civil-union law.
  • March 17, 2000: The Vermont House of Representatives, by a 76–69 margin, passes H.847 to allow gay and lesbian couples to receive “reciprocal benefits” as married couples under Vermont law.
  • April 18, 2000: The Vermont Senate gives preliminary approval to the civil-union bill by a 19–11 vote, after two efforts to amend the state constitution fail.
  • April 26, 2000: Governor Howard Dean signs H.847 into law, making Vermont the first state in the nation to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples. The law, which extends a variety of legal rights, protections and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples, also defines “marriage” as the union of a man and a woman.
  • July 1, 2000: Vermont’s civil-union law officially takes effect.
  • November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules 4–3 that denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, and gives the legislature six months to rewrite Massachusetts’ marriage laws.
  • May 17, 2004: Same-sex marriages become legal in Massachusetts.
  • October 2005: Civil unions become legal in Connecticut.
  • August 4, 2006: The Vermont Supreme Court rules unanimously that Vermont courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a child-custody case involving two women who were joined in a civil union in Vermont in 2000 and have since parted ways. The ruling conflicts with several Virginia court rulings, which cite that state’s anti-gay-marriage law.
  • December 2006: Civil unions become legal in New Jersey.
  • April 21, 2008: After five months of statewide public meetings, the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection issues its report on civil unions. Among other things, it finds that civil unions are “separate but unequal,” are not very “portable” to other states, and are less likely than marriages to be recognized by the federal government; it concludes that “Vermont is ready to take the next step.” However, the Commission stops short of issuing a recommendation that Vermont replace civil unions with gay marriage.
  • May 15, 2008: The California Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples may marry.
  • October 10, 2008: The Connecticut Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have the right to marry.
  • November 4, 2008: California voters pass Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Its provisions take effect the following day. Similar measures also pass in Arizona and Florida, amending their state constitutions to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Got something to say? Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

About The Author

Ken Picard

Ken Picard

Ken Picard has been a Seven Days staff writer since 2002. He has won numerous awards for his work, including the Vermont Press Association's 2005 Mavis Doyle award, a general excellence prize for reporters.


Comments are closed.

From 2014-2020, Seven Days allowed readers to comment on all stories posted on our website. While we've appreciated the suggestions and insights, right now Seven Days is prioritizing our core mission — producing high-quality, responsible local journalism — over moderating online debates between readers.

To criticize, correct or praise our reporting, please send us a letter to the editor or send us a tip. We’ll check it out and report the results.

Online comments may return when we have better tech tools for managing them. Thanks for reading.

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative

All content © 2023 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401

Advertising Policy  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us  |  About Us  |  Help
Website powered by Foundation