Vermont Freedom To Marry

Finally, justice in Kentucky. With Rowan County clerk Kim Davis jailed for contempt of court, her deputies were free this morning to begin issuing marriage licenses.

James Yates and William Smith Jr. were the first to receive their license. Supporters cheered as they left the courthouse, chanting, “Love Won!”

It did indeed.

Read more on today’s overdue victory.

Today’s Rutland Herald/Times Argus editorial:

A public duty

The county clerks in Kentucky and elsewhere who are refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the basis of the clerks’ religious beliefs misconstrue the relationship between law and religion in our constitutional system.

It is a sadly doomed rear-guard action that Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, is fighting, turning away couples who have come to her office for a marriage license. A federal judge found her in contempt Thursday and ordered her to jail. Her supporters may believe her resistance represents a valiant defense of principle. But when she says she is refusing to issue marriage licenses on the authority of God’s law, she forgets that her role as a public official requires her to follow the secular law. When the two conflict, our constitutional system does not allow her to subject the public to the dictates of her religion.

Why do we demand that our public officials adhere to the Constitution? Government officials — including clerks, school boards, police officers, judges — wield power on behalf of the public on the basis of rules that have their foundation in the Constitution. No citizen may be deprived of his or her constitutional rights without due process of law. That is in the 14th Amendment. And when government officials deprive people of their rights, they may be called to account in the courts.

That is what happened when the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that the School Board of Topeka, Kansas, could not legally segregate its schools on the basis of race. It happened when the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that no state could deny a marriage license to couples on the basis of race. And it happened this year when the court ruled that couples could not be denied a marriage license on the basis of sexual orientation.

Defiance of Supreme Court rulings has a long history. In the 1950s, the governor of Virginia closed the state’s public schools for months rather than open them to African-Americans. In Little Rock, Arkansas, President Dwight D. Eisenhower called out the National Guard to escort students into the public high school. The governors of Virginia and Arkansas were convinced that their interpretation of the law trumped the Supreme Court, but they were wrong.

County or town clerks have been on the front lines of the marriage equality struggle. When three same-sex couples in Vermont went to their town clerks in the 1990s seeking marriage licenses, the clerks refused them. They believed they had no authority under state law to grant those licenses. It wasn’t until the state Supreme Court ruled in the Baker case that the three couples deserved all the rights and benefits of marriage that the Legislature created civil unions.

Much of the opposition to civil unions was founded on religious beliefs, but the Constitution does not allow any religion to dictate the secular law. That is why John F. Kennedy felt compelled when he was running for president to affirm that he would serve the U.S. Constitution and not the pope. We had never had a Catholic president before, and there was suspicion that a Catholic president would feel compelled to serve two masters. Kennedy made sure the people understood that would not happen.

When it comes to gay marriage, the American people need to know that their public servants are fulfilling their public obligations, which means administering the law fairly to all. People with certain religious beliefs may decide they are not well suited to the duties of a county clerk, and if that is the case, they ought to seek other work rather than impose their beliefs on those who do not share them.

These are the inevitable tensions within a democracy that provides for religious liberty and also demands equality before the law. It is to misread the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage to believe it narrows religious liberty. What it narrows is the opportunity for public servants to impose their religious views on others.

Essex Junction, Vt — Vermont Freedom to Marry is saying goodbye after two decades of work to achieve marriage equality. As the fight for LGBT-equality in the U.S. and around the world continues, Vermont’s leadership role in the marriage-equality movement provides a hopeful example of what can be accomplished when people join together with determination and perseverance to gain civil rights.

The Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force formed in 1996 with the mission of achieving civil marriage equality in Vermont. At the time, marriage equality did not exist in any nation in the world, and the concept of same-sex couples having the freedom to marry was foreign to many. Fast forward to 2015 when marriage equality is a reality not only in Vermont but across the U.S.

In the twenty years between VFMTF’s formation and the momentous U.S. Supreme Court decision that led to nationwide marriage equality, Vermont milestones marked the progress of the marriage-equality movement. Those milestones include the landmark 1999 Vermont Supreme Court Baker v. Vermont ruling, which found that same-sex couples in the state were entitled to the same benefits and protections as opposite-sex couples; the 2000 civil union legislation that was the first of its kind in the U.S.; and the 2009 override of Governor Douglas’s veto of the marriage bill, making Vermont the first state to successfully enact marriage equality via the legislative process.

Behind each of these equality milestones was the work of Vermont Freedom to Marry, its volunteers and supporters across the state.

“Vermont Freedom to Marry was there every step of the way,” said Sheryl Rapée-Adams, VFMTF Board Chair. “From when Beth Robinson and Susan Murray co-founded the organization to today, all of the work was aimed toward ensuring that Vermont same-sex couples and their families have the same legal protections and respect as all other Vermont families.”

VFMTF’s mission reached the finish line in 2015 when Mary Bonauto, who was co-counsel with Beth Robinson and Susan Murray on Baker v. Vermont, took the argument for marriage equality to the U.S. Supreme Court and won.

“Even after Vermont achieved in-state marriage equality in 2009, we felt it was important to keep standing for the principle that equality shouldn’t depend on where you live,” added Sheryl Rapée Adams.

“When the marriages of Vermont same-sex couples received federal recognition after DOMA was struck down in 2013, that was one step closer. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of nationwide marriage equality, our goal was truly met. With the elimination of the unfair patchwork of marriage laws across the U.S., families of married same-sex Vermont couples were no longer under threat beyond state lines. We knew then it was time to begin archiving our history and, most importantly, to say thank you to all of Vermont Freedom to Marry’s supporters over the years.”

Vermont Freedom to Marry is immensely grateful to all those LGBT community members and allies who participated in large ways and small towards its mission fulfillment, whether that participation involved being a voice for equality at county fairs and town forums, writing letters to the editor, contacting legislators, donating generously to fund the work, attending and testifying at public hearings, expressing solidarity through stickers and buttons, having conversations with friends and family with differing views, or simply being visible as supporters of equal recognition for all families. Hearts and minds were won, one at a time, through all these efforts.

VFMTF is also grateful to all those legislators and political leaders who supported equality, during both the 2000 civil union fight and the push for marriage in 2009. In 2000, a number of legislators voted their conscience and faced harsh political consequences in the next election for doing so. Their brave stance for justice put them on the wrong side of their electorate at the time, but on the right side of history: In 2010, nearly every pro-equality legislator who ran again went on to win reelection.

Finally, VFMTF is grateful to its co-founders, Beth Robinson and Susan Murray, whose vision of fairness for all Vermont families set the path to equality, and to the Baker v. Vermont plaintiffs who became the public face of the movement.

The Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force work began in a Middlebury law office and with a local group of core volunteers who remain active to this day. With the disposition of Vermont Freedom to Marry’s historical archive to Middlebury College Special Collections, the successful team effort has come full circle and arrived home.

Vermont Freedom to Marry was the nonprofit resource for marriage equality in Vermont that spearheaded the successful effort to secure the freedom to marry for the state’s same-sex couples.

The decision by the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force to put itself out of business brings to a close a remarkable chapter in Vermont’s history that tells an important story about how to bring about social change in a democracy.

Last June the U.S. Supreme Court found that equality under the law, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, barred any state from denying same-sex couples the right to marry. It was the ultimate victory for the freedom-to-marry movement, and with that victory achieved, the work of the task force was complete. The organization will bequeath its archive to Middlebury College.

It was not easy to envision that final victory in the early days of the Freedom to Marry Task Force. Two Middlebury lawyers, Beth Robinson and Susan Murray, established the organization in 1996 in an atmosphere when open hostility to gay rights and outright homophobic bigotry were common.

It was the strategy of Robinson and Murray to put a human face on the issue of gay marriage. They spent many long days and nights on the road, meeting with community groups, organizing supporters and preparing a legal challenge. It was always their aim for activists and supporters to behave with dignity and respect, to show they deserved the dignity and respect that come with equal rights.

Their focus initially was on the lawsuit they filed on behalf of three couples who had gone to their town clerks for marriage licenses and been refused. This was the famous Baker case, named after Stan Baker, one of the plaintiffs. The six plaintiffs were chosen because they were people of enormous courage, commitment and perseverance. And they had an enormous struggle ahead of them.

The Vermont Supreme Court caused bitter disappointment for the task force when it refused to legalize gay marriage, instead giving the Legislature the job of allowing marriage or something like it. Ultimately, Robinson and Murray saw that they needed to go a step at a time — to play the long game. They won civil unions when the Legislature passed and Gov. Howard Dean signed a bill in 2000, the first time a state had granted same-sex couples rights equivalent to marriage.

The long game was long indeed. The task force had to withstand the backlash in the election and in the legislative session following the creation of civil unions and then do the painstaking work preparing for a new battle for full marriage equality. Meanwhile, Vermont’s action creating civil unions was only the first in a wave of similar battles — in Massachusetts, Iowa, California and elsewhere.

Vermont had created the template: Advocates must keep their eye on the prize, behave with dignity even as opponents become viciously hostile. People learned the lesson that the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force tried to teach: that gay people are not a threat, that they are our friends, neighbors, brothers, sisters, that love is a powerful force that, in the end, overcomes hatred and fear.

The task force in Vermont kept its eye on the prize, and in 2009 the Legislature, by a single vote, overrode the veto of Gov. James Douglas, passing a law allowing for full marriage equality. Anyone in the House chamber that day remembers it as one of the most dramatic and astonishing political occurrences of a lifetime. It was the culmination of the hard work of many hundreds of Vermonters.

The success of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force was due in part to the fact that every member, every leader, saw it was not about them. It was about something larger. In a sense it was about all of us, and whether we would live in a nation willing to free itself from the fears of the past. Robinson and Murray were the kind of leaders who never made it about themselves, and everybody in the organization caught on. They played the long game for dignity and respect. When the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed their cause last June, they had finally won.

Most of you have probably heard by now that the trial in the California court challenge to Proposition 8 Beth’s Blog headshotbegins today. It’s expected to take two weeks. Stay tuned — it should be interesting, and will no doubt provide helpful opportunities for public education.

I expect we’ll be reading and hearing a lot about the trial over the next few weeks. It’s a great educational opportunity! The more Americans learn about the realities of our lives, the sooner we’ll have full equal rights. The case is drawing even more attention than it otherwise might because of the identity of the lead lawyers representing the gay couples. Former Republican Solicitor General Ted Olson, a respected conservative on many issues, and David Boies, a prominent liberal, last faced off in the case of Bush v. Gore. That human interest angle has attracted a lot of media. It also demonstrates that the values of freedom, family, and equality don’t belong exclusively to the liberals or the conservatives, the Democrats or the Republicans.

Most, but not all, of the state court marriage cases have proceeded without an actual trial, so this process is atypical. Rather than relying on briefs and articles, the parties in this case will present testimony and expert evidence regarding some of the factual issues that underlie the legal analysis in this case. Are same-sex relationships as stable as heterosexual relationships? Do gay, lesbian and bisexual people have enough political power to rely on the majoritarian political process to protect their rights? For the next two weeks a United States District Court in California will hear evidence about these and other issues before deciding whether California’s state constitutional ban on same-sex couples legally marrying (aka Prop 8) violates the United States Constitution.

The case is also unusual insofar as this is the first time in the modern freedom to marry movement that US Supreme Courtparties have posed a credible federal constitutional challenge to laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Thus far, all of the cases in the past two decades, from Hawaii through Iowa, have focused on state law constitutional challenges. That isn’t a coincidence. State constitutions provide independent and meaningful constitutional rights. Decisions of state supreme courts regarding their own state constitutions also are not appealable to the United States Supreme Court, since state supreme courts are the final arbiters of their own states’ constitutions. This case, by raising claims under the United States Constitution, could potentially land in the United States Supreme Court — for better or for worse.
Therein lies the controversy.

Many advocates in the freedom to marry movement, myself included, have expressed concerns about the timing of this case. After studying the course of court cases and legislative reforms regarding laws banning interracial marriage, as well as our own movement’s history with sodomy law reform, many have concluded that to take a case to the present United States Supreme Court at this time, before a critical mass of states have been persuaded through courts or legislation to eliminate their bans on marriage between same-sex couples, presents unacceptable risks. You don’t get two bites at the Supreme Court apple in a decade. In fact, we had to wait 18 years after the devastating loss in Bowers v. Hardwick (upholding sodomy laws as applied to same-sex partners) before the United States finally reversed course in Lawrence v. Texas. During the intervening time, countless gay parents lost custody of their kids, or were denied parental rights, because the United States Supreme Court had endorsed their being labeled as felons. We learned the hard way that when you lose before the United States Supreme Court, you’re stuck with that decision, and its ramifications, for a good long time. That’s why many, including me, don’t want to go to the United States Supreme Court on the marriage issue prematurely; by doing so, we risk setting back the movement by a generation. (Of course, if you win, you’re a hero.)

That said, the trial has begun. I hope for nothing but the best for the parties, and our movement, in this trial. I hope if and when presented with decisions about appealing, the lead lawyers and parties in this case will think long and hard before taking this to the United States Supreme Court. In the meantime, the fact of this court case lends even greater urgency to our efforts, all across the country, to do the vital grassroots work necessary to make it possible, and indeed probable, that the United States Supreme Court will do the right thing the FIRST time around on this issue.

Help kick off Pride Week! Join Pride Vermont, Outright Vermont, RU12 Community Center, Samara Foundation, Vermont CARES, Vermont Freedom to Marry, and Vermont TransAction at a Gubernatorial Candidate Forum on Monday, July 19th, from 6:30pm-8pm.Vermont State Seal

Hear from the candidates who are facing a primary on August 24th about why they deserve to be their party’s candidate for governor. Bring your questions and learn about the candidates’ commitment to LGBTQ issues.

Before the general election please look for a notice about an event to which all gubernatorial candidates will be invited.

This event is open to the public and will be held at the Alumni Auditorium at Champlain College, 375 Maple Street, Burlington.

PLEASE THANK THE LEGISLATORS WHO VOTED FOR S.115

Thank the legislators who stood up for the full marriage equality. Vermont legislators didn’t flinch in the face of political threats and opposition rhetoric. They stood up for what was right, and they need to hear how much we appreciate their courage.

Click here for a list of REPRESENTATIVES who voted for the freedom to marry.

Click here for a list of SENATORS who voted for the freedom to marry.

Click here to LOOK UP your Legislators.

Resources for couples planning to wed in Vermont:

Resources for individuals and families
FAQ for couples who want to marry
Wedding Officiants (Clergy & JPs) plus Vermont Travel and Tourism Sites
Vermont’s Town & City Clerks (contact about obtaining a wedding license where you plan to wed)

FAQ for Couples Who Want to Marry

Click here to visit our new Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force website for a listing of wedding officiants in Vermont.

Implementation of S.115: Frequently Asked Questions

Click here to download this FAQ as a PDF

When did Vermont’s new law allowing same-sex couples to legally marry take effect? The new law, S.115, took effect on September 1, 2009. As of that date, same-sex couples can get Vermont marriage licenses, but can no longer obtain civil union licenses.

If I am already joined in civil union, what happened to my civil union on September 1? Vermont’s new law, S.115, will not affect existing civil unions, or civil unions celebrated before September 1, 2009. If you are joined in civil union, you will remain joined in civil union unless you legally dissolve your relationship by court order, or unless one of the parties to the civil union dies. If you are joined in civil union and would like to legally marry your civil union partner, you may do so by going through the same steps as any other couple. No new civil union licenses will be issued after September 1, 2009.

Should my partner and I, who joined in civil union before September 1, 2009, also legally marry in the hope that our relationship will be recognized in as many places as possible? This is a legal question that we cannot answer for you. In the short run, it is true that there may be places that will recognize your civil union but not your legal marriage, and other places that recognize your marriage but not your civil union. Bear in mind that if you are legally married to your partner and joined in civil union to your partner, if you split up you will likely need a court order dissolving both legal statuses.

If my partner and I get legally married, will we be entitled to Social Security Survivor Benefits and other federal law protections? You will be closer to getting those protections, but still won’t be able to get them. Federal law currently does not recognize, for federal law purposes, otherwise valid marriages between same-sex partners. This restriction is the subject of a constitutional challenge in a pending court case, and may be the target of repeal efforts in Congress. For now, the federal government is not recognizing valid marriages between same-sex partners. Social Security is a federal law program.

Does Vermont have a residency requirement for marriage? Vermont does not have a residency requirement for marriage. Vermont does, however, have a residency requirement for divorce. Non-residents who legally marry in Vermont and then later split up may find it difficult to get a divorce, depending on where you live. Non-residents should keep this in mind when deciding whether to marry in Vermont.

Who can get married in Vermont? Two people who are each at least 18 years old can marry in Vermont. If you are at least 16, but under 18, you will need the consent of a parent or guardian. Your parent or guardian should go with you to the town clerk’s office to sign an affidavit giving you permission to marry. (The affidavit is on the back of the marriage license and is a legal part of the license.) Effective September 1, 2009, nobody under the age of 16 will be able to marry in Vermont.

Will there be any other marriage restrictions? Anyone under guardianship cannot marry without the guardian’s written consent. Vermont also does not allow marriage between most close relatives. You cannot marry a parent, grandparent, sister, brother, child, grandchild, niece, nephew, aunt, or uncle. First cousins may marry each other in Vermont. You cannot marry if either of you is currently married or joined in civil union to someone other than the person you seek to marry. The law requires that both parties be of sound mind.

What if either of us was married or joined in civil union before? If your spouse or civil union partner has died, you are free to marry. The clerk will ask the date your spouse or civil union partner died. If you are divorced, you may remarry after the date on which your previous marriage or civil union was legally dissolved.

Do we need a marriage license? Do we need blood tests? You will need a license, but you do not need blood tests, and there is no waiting period.

Where do we get a marriage license and how much does it cost? Licenses are issued by Vermont town clerks. If both parties are Vermont residents, you may go to the town clerk in either of your towns of residence. If just one of you resides in a Vermont town, you must buy the license in that town. The license costs $45, and is valid for 60 days from the date it is issued. During that time period, an authorized person must perform your wedding ceremony — otherwise, the license is void.

What if we are not Vermont residents? If neither party is a Vermont resident, you may get the license from any town clerk in the state.

Can a license be issued through the mail? Can we be married by proxy? No. A marriage license cannot be issued through the mail, and you cannot be married by proxy.

Where can we get married? With a valid Vermont license, you can be married anywhere in Vermont, but only in Vermont.

What information must we provide to get a marriage license? Besides basic information about yourselves (names, towns of residence, places, and dates of birth), you must also provide your parents’ names, including your mothers’ maiden names, and their places of birth. (A certified copy of your birth certificate can supply most of this information.) Vermont law requires that at least one of you sign the license in the presence of the town clerk, certifying that all the information you provided is correct. However, most town clerks prefer to see both of you in person before issuing your license. The law requires that town clerks satisfy themselves that you are both free to marry under Vermont laws. Therefore, they may legally ask to see documented proof of your statements (birth certificates, divorce decrees, death certificates, etc.). You will also be asked to provide information about your race, the highest grade you completed in school, the number of previous marriages, and how they ended. This information is confidential and does not become part of the marriage certificate.

Who can marry us? Do we need witnesses? A Supreme Court justice, a superior court judge, a district judge, a judge of probate, an assistant judge, a justice of the peace, or an ordained or licensed member of the clergy residing in Vermont can perform your wedding ceremony. A clergy person residing in an adjoining state or country can marry you if his or her church, temple, mosque, or other religious organization lies wholly or partly in Vermont. A clergy member residing in some other state or in Canada can marry you if he or she first obtains a special authorization from the probate court in the district where the marriage will take place. In addition, any person who is over the age of 18 may register with the Secretary of State to become a temporary officiant to a marriage. A person who has filled out the registration form and who has paid the registration fee of $100 will receive a certificate authorizing the person to solemnize a specific Vermont marriage. The individual’s authority to solemnize that marriage will expire at the same time as the corresponding license. For information on registering to be a temporary officiant, click here or call 802-828-2148. Vermont law does not require witnesses for a legal marriage.

What do we do with the license? What happens to it after the ceremony? By law, you must deliver the license to the person who will conduct your wedding ceremony before the marriage can be performed. After the ceremony, the person who performs the ceremony (officiant) will complete the sections concerning the date, place and officiant information, and sign your license. At that point, the license becomes a marriage certificate. The officiant must return the certificate to the town clerk’s office where it was issued within 10 days after the wedding, so that your marriage can be officially registered. If the officiant has registered with the Secretary of State as a temporary officiant, a copy of the certificate of authority issued by the Secretary of State should be attached to the signed license and returned to the clerk’s office. The certificate is not a complete legal document until it has been recorded in the town clerk’s office where it was purchased.

How do we get a copy of our marriage certificate? At the time you buy your marriage license, you can arrange with the town clerk to mail you a certified copy of your certificate as soon as your marriage has been recorded. The cost is $10 for the certified copy along with the $45 for the license purchase ($10 + $45 = $55). Or, two weeks or more after the ceremony, you can request, in person or in writing, additional copies from the town clerk’s office where you bought your license for the same $10 fee. Or, six or more weeks after your ceremony, you may request, in person or in writing, a certified copy from the Vermont Department of Health, Vital Records Unit for $10. In either case, you will receive a copy of the original certificate, embossed with the town or state seal, signed and dated by the appropriate official. This copy is accepted for all legal purposes as proof of a valid marriage.

What legal considerations should we take into account in deciding whether to marry? The decision to legally marry involves personal, emotional, financial, legal, and, for some people, religious considerations. You should consult a lawyer if you want a thorough assessment of the legal ramifications of marrying, or if you want to enter into an agreement to limit some of the legal ramifications of marrying. You should be aware of several potential issues specific to same-sex couples. First, if you are in the military, the act of marrying may impact your status. You should consult with counsel before taking that step. Second, if you intend to pursue a foreign adoption, your status as married to a same-sex partner may compromise your ability to do so. Again, talk to a lawyer if this is true for you.

Want more detailed information?

Check out the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders handy guide to marrying in Vermont on their website.

Washington, D.C. marriage equality commences March 3 – The last hurdle to Washington, D.C.’s freedom to marry was crossed on February 26. On that day, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals unanimously denied a Maryland minister’s requested injunction to block the new law from taking effect.

SXC u_s__supreme_courtA California court decision affirming a non-biological mother’s parental status was left unchanged by the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 22, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the appeal of a lesbian mother seeking to prevent her former partner from continuing a parental relationship with the daughter they had together. The non-biological mother’s help preparing for the child’s birth and public acknowledgment of parenthood were factors in the original decision.

Good news In Indiana! Senate Joint Resolution 13, which would have amended Indiana’s state constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples, was stopped when the Indiana House of Representatives refused to conduct a hearing on this discriminatory proposal. According to Indiana Equality, “Friends of fairness and equality generated nearly 15,000 e-mails and letters to State Legislators urging them to reject SJR-13.”

New Hampshire House upholds freedom to marry – In Concord on Monday, New Hampshire’s House of Representatives rejected a measure that would have revised the New Hampshire Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The 201-135 vote was insufficient to move the bill for a Senate vote and it will not appear on the ballot in the next general election.

An hour later, the same governing body rejected a bill that would have repealed the state’s law granting equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. The House said, “No!” in voting 210 to 109 to kill the measure.

“The vast majority of people with their families to be healthy and secure and wish this for their neighbors as well,” said Mo Baxley, Executive Director of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition.

Learn more at the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition’s website.