Originally appeared Oct. 9, 2001, in the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader.
Courts in Canada have recently ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. This summer, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may do the same. We're heading toward a national debate on same-sex marriage that will make Vermont's civil union brawl look like cocktail conversation.
Should gay couples have the same legal rights, benefits and responsibilities as straight couples?
I focus on legal issues, because we will never agree on religious ones.
For many, marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, sanctioned first by God and supported secondarily by civil law. According to this view, marriage requires one man and one woman. We all know the bumper-sticker summary: It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Those who disagree with the court rulings are correct in stating that the rulings radically redefine marriage as we know it. And those who support same-sex marriage shouldn't shrink from admitting this as well.
Traditionalists also say that giving gay couples the benefits of marriage cheapens and undermines marriage. These accusations, if true, are far more serious than the fact of redefinition. Our Vermont experiment, however, suggests that they are false.
Take cheapen, for example. No one can prove that my civil union with my partner of 11 years devalues my neighbor's marriage. It's an opinion, and a silly one, for it masks a rather dim view of marriage. According to vital records reports from Vermont's Department of Health, there were fewer divorces in Vermont in 2001 (the first full year of the civil union law) than in 1999 (before there was a single civil union), but in 2000 and 2001, the number of divorces was significantly greater than the number of civil unions. Gay couples getting hitched demean marriage more than straight couples getting unhitched? I don't buy it.
As for undermining marriages, 6,056 marriages were performed in Vermont in 1999, 122 more than in 1998. In 2000, the first year civil unions were available, 6,271 marriages were performed in Vermont, 215 more than in 1999.
Then there's the 2001 report. 5,983 marriages were performed in Vermont, 288 less than in 2000. We'll have to wait for the 2002 report to see if 2001 was an anomaly (perhaps due to the terrorist attacks?) or part of a long-term trend. If the latter, traditionalists may have ammunition to argue that, as gay rights expand, marriage contracts. Still, I wager that none of the folks who got married in 2000 and 2001 feel that the civil union law weakens their marriages.
There's another interesting statistic in the reports. "The percentage of civil (marriage) ceremonies increased to 58.9 percent in 2001. This percent has increased every year since 1990 when it was 47.2 percent." More and more couples are choosing a justice of the peace or a judge instead of a minister or rabbi to get married. This is as true for first-timers as for people who are getting married for the second or third time. In 2001, for example, more first-time Vermont brides opted for civil ceremonies than for religious ones. (The flip-flop for grooms happened in 2000.)
This statistic should concern traditionalists more than same-sex marriage.
It says that more and more straight couples are separating the legal aspects of marriage from the liturgical ones, which is precisely what the courts are doing.
Civil marriage in Vermont is now more popular than religious marriage, and I suspect that other states (and Canada) have also seen an increase in the number of civil ceremonies and a decrease in the number of religious ceremonies.
Two years ago, I wrote for the The (Manchester) Union Leader that America would do well to follow the European model and separate civil marriage from religious marriage. I suggested that we make civil unions available to all, straight and gay, and reserve marriage for religious institutions. The continued increase of civil marriages only strengthens my case for a "radical redefinition" of marriage.
Meanwhile, traditionalists need to spell out why gay couples - many of whom have children - should be denied the protections afforded to married couples.
Until they do, the refusal to offer these protections comes across as the fiery imposition of religious belief, not the cool decision of civil authority.
Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, and Miriam and Eve all need legal protection.
A May 2003 Gallup Poll revealed that 49 percent of Americans support laws that provide such protection. California's legislature is poised to pass such a law, but it is a sad commentary on the power of religion, tradition and inertia that, so far, courts must mandate such laws that promise liberty and justice for all.
Will these rulings mean that other states and the federal government will follow Vermont's example and pass laws that support gay couples? I doubt they will. But they should.