End the Discrimination

by Margaret Michniewicz

As we go to press, the Statehouse is in a flurry of activity; legislative pages darting around the House floor, bearing the latest communiqués to Vermont’s Representatives as they take on H.178. This bill would grant the right of marriage to couples of the same gender. It is the next, and necessary, step forward in our society towards achieving true civil rights for all its citizens.

The stakes are high and the outcome uncertain. Proponents know they must attain a veto-proof majority of 100 votes to nullify Governor Jim Douglas’ promise to reject the measure if it comes to his desk. Perhaps it is for the best that the Governor’s stand was made clear in advance, so that the will of the people may in the end prevail over a single individual’s opinion.

It could be said that I, an unmarried heterosexual woman, have no dog in this fight. Unless, however, I take into account the love and pride I have for my home state, which has always been at the forefront of doing the right thing. I fervently count on Vermont to once again lead the way with courage and compassion, not regress out of fear and prejudice.

The contention that this is a distraction in times of extenuating economic circumstances is, in itself, a distracting political ploy. The Legislature is meant to take on numerous issues each legislative session.

I attended the joint Senate and House Judiciary Committee hearing in March. I admired all of the speakers for their bravery to voice their opinion publicly, and in person, to take a stand one way or another. My heart sank, though, to realize that so much of the opposition to the equal marriage rights bill is based on inaccurate information.

For example, those who jealously covet the right to marriage for themselves with the excuse that same-gender couples should be satisfied with civil unions – claiming they are equal, just differently named – fail to appreciate that the marriage they may have had performed in their church according to their religious faith, brings with it over a thousand legal rights and benefits under the law. As we reported in the article “In Defense of Marriage For Everyone” (Vermont Woman, February 2009), there are at minimum 1,138 very beneficial provisions, according to a 2004 report released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), in which marital status factors in the determination of federal privileges, rights, and benefits. Not to mention the marital benefits that states can bundle in as well.

So no – civil unions, though initially a progressive step, are not equal, are not just.

I beseech the members of the Legislature facing this decision to consider this hypothetical situation for Douglas: What if his wife, Dorothy Douglas, was in a terrible accident and he was physically, legally, cruelly barred from approaching her bedside. Why? Because they were not married under the law. You probably cannot even fathom the idea – but, you must make yourself appreciate that this is the meaning of the bill you are about to vote on. It’s not just a legal term.

Allow me to share a telling anecdote about a gentleman I had the honor of knowing. He was a native-born Vermonter, child of the Depression; he worked in heavy construction for more than 50 years. He was a devoted Catholic, and I suspect he only missed weekly Mass once or twice in his life, probably due to the malaria he contracted while fighting for his country in World War II.

In the time immediately following the passage of civil union law in Vermont, he had occasion to be asked by his daughter to help her friends, a lesbian couple. Now I suspect that, given his devout faith and the Catholic Church’s vociferous objections to gays and lesbians, he held certain beliefs about the two women. But in observing his interactions, it seems he must have trusted in his faith – and obeyed its teachings – that it was up to God to ultimately determine what was right and what was wrong. In the meantime, he likely recalled that his religion specifically called upon him to treat others with love, kindness and compassion, which he did.

It is also likely that, having fought overseas and risked his own life to rid the world of religious intolerance, that he was not about to succumb to allowing his own beloved country and home state be taken over by religious intolerance here.

Let it be remembered that the glory of this country is founded on ideals such as the freedom to live safely according to one’s faith – and at the same time, be protected from subjugation to the religious dogma of someone else.

In our history, we have unfortunately witnessed instances where religion has been misused shamefully against our brothers and sisters. To offer one glaring example, some believed the institution of enslavement in the United States was in accordance with the will of God.

The sanctity of marriage entered into between one man and one woman will remain safely intact as long as they love, honor, and respect one another as they pledge – and that union’s sanctity will prevail despite the actions of any other married couples, who go on to commit adultery, divorce, or even assault or murder the other.

Granting the same legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples does not impede on anyone else’s vows of matrimony – and more importantly, is a civil right that is incumbent on Vermonters to acknowledge and extend. Take my home state forward.

Native Vermonter Margaret Michniewicz is editor of Vermont Woman: editor@vermontwoman.com.