Vermont's Marriage Equality Bill

I support the Vermont Marriage Equality Bill that has been the subject of a number of contentious (and sometimes contemptuous) discussions around the state.

Vermont was the first state to permit civil unions among same-sex couples, and indeed Vermont's traditions focus on recognizing equality and our common humanity.

Making that bill a law is the right thing to do. Opposition to the bill seems to come most often from people's religious convictions and have been, to my mind, extremely doctrinaire.

I'm uncomfortable when opponents of the bill wield terms like "Christian civilization," "sacraments," or "sacrilege" as if to demand that Vermont's state laws exemplify specific religious traditions or precepts. Civil marriage has done just fine for a long time without interference from theology or religion. Yet the most frequent objections to same-sex marriage appear to spring from personal religious beliefs.

I respect people's personal religious beliefs, but I caution against using them to influence law-making, especially when such beliefs attempt to deny extending rights. We saw attempts to do so in the presidency of George W. Bush, and I'm confident that we are all better than that.

Once we refuse rights to some citizens, we risk going down a slippery slope where in the future we may decide to deny other rights on "religious" grounds. We might decide to refuse the right of my wife (a Jew) to marry me (a Catholic). We might once again deny the right of a Caucasian and a Black to marry, as a number of states used to do through anti-miscegenation laws.

Recent objections to same-sex marriage that I have heard use the argument that marriage is a sacrament. It's true that marriage is a sacrament in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church. However, we're talking about same-sex marriage under civil law, not under Canon Law. No one is expecting the state of Vermont to award sacramental status to any marriage, heterosexual or same-sex. And no one is expecting the Catholic Church to re-examine its doctrines, at least not in this century.

By the same token, no religious group has the right to expect that governments will espouse the beliefs of a religious sect or denomination. If we do that, we'll begin to resemble Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and other societies overcome with religious fervor.

I find it interesting in a nation where divorce ends nearly 45% of heterosexual first marriages, that some cling to the belief that marriage is an inviolable relationship only between two people of the opposite sex, instead of between two people who, regardless of their gender, love and wish to commit to each other. I encourage all concerned citizens to support Vermont's Marriage Equality bill to legalize civil marriages for same-sex couples.

Once this bill passes, we need to take steps to re-think the Defense of Marriage Act so that same-sex and non-traditional married couples can enjoy the same federal rights as heterosexual married couples, including recognition of their marital status in every state, not just the one in which they were married, and including the income tax, and wealth and gifting advantages that adhere to married couples today.