
How did gay marriage become legal? Civil unions in this state paved the way 25 years ago.
How did gay marriage become legal? Civil unions in this state paved the way 25 years ago.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
HHS proposes plan to cut LGBTQ youth suicide hotline program
The federal government proposed eliminating funding for the 988 National Suicide and Crisis Lifeline's program that supports LGBTQ+ youth.
Scripps News
Vermont became the first state to grant marriage-equivalent rights to same-sex couples through civil unions in 2000.
The Vermont Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Vermont, which prompted the creation of civil unions, was a pivotal step toward nationwide marriage equality.
Despite initial controversy and political backlash, civil unions paved the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Vermont and other states.
Thousands of same-sex couples from across the country and world traveled to Vermont to enter into civil unions before the legalization of same-sex marriage.
The fight for civil unions highlighted the discrimination faced by same-sex couples and the need for legal recognition of their relationships.
Gay marriage, once an unpopular concept nationwide, is widely accepted today. And more so in certain states like Vermont.
'People take for granted that same-sex couples can get married nowadays,' Bill Lippert, 75, one of Vermont's first openly gay lawmakers, told the Burlington Free Press, which is a part of the USA TODAY Network. 'You can reference your husband or wife casually now in conversation. But if you weren't around 25 years ago, there isn't always an appreciation for how hard we had to fight."
April 26 marked the 25th anniversary of civil unions – marriage for same-sex couples in all but name – becoming state law. Although civil unions were deeply controversial even among Vermonters at the time, they served as the first pivotal step toward full marriage equality, Lippert said.
In 2000, Vermont became the first place in the world to grant marriage-equivalent legal rights to same-sex couples. Domestic partnerships existed in some places, but those unions 'usually only granted a few legal rights,' Lippert said.
'The eyes of the whole country and world were focused on what Vermont was doing in 2000,' said Lippert, who helped craft the civil unions bill while serving on the house judiciary committee.
Three years later Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage, followed by Connecticut and Iowa in 2008. Vermont followed suit in 2009. Several more states legalized same-sex marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court finally made it nationwide law in 2015 through the Obergefell v. Hodges case.
'One can see the direct connection between what Vermont did in 2000 with civil unions to what followed in Massachusetts and eventually with Obergefell in 2015,' Lippert said.
'Painful' life before civil unions
Prior to the creation of civil unions, gay and lesbian couples lacked 'a thousand more rights' than married straight couples, Lippert said, no matter how long they had been together.
For instance, if one partner in a same-sex relationship was in hospital, the other partner did not automatically have the power of attorney.
'That was one of the most painful ones,' Lippert said.
Lippert recalled one particularly egregious case that happened to a lesbian couple with a child. When the partner who had given birth to the child died in a car crash, her parents fought for custody even though the two women had been raising the kid together.
'The list goes on and on,' Lippert said.
Although Vermont eventually established 'second parent adoption' in 1993, there still wasn't a 'legal connection between partners,' Lippert noted.
'That side of the triangle was missing,' he said.
The road to civil unions: 'The Baker Case'
In the late '90s, three lawyers and three same-sex couples decided it was time to test Vermont's marriage laws.
In 1998, three Vermont same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Chittenden County. When their marriages were denied, they filed a lawsuit that became known as Baker v. Vermont, or informally "the Baker Case," after the last name of one of the plaintiffs. A Vermont Superior Court judge ruled to dismiss the case, so the plaintiffs made an appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court.
What the Vermont Supreme Court did next shocked everyone. Instead of either legalizing gay marriage or striking down the case, the justices ruled in 1999 that same-sex couples should be afforded all the same legal rights as heterosexual couples but left it up to the Vermont legislature whether to grant gay couples the ability to marry or form an equivalent union.
'Personally, I was shocked because I had been assured by the attorneys fighting for gay marriage that we would never have to vote on it in the legislature,' Lippert said. 'Many of my colleagues were, frankly, beyond anxious – terrified – because they never wanted to deal with the issue because it was so controversial.'
At the time, some states were changing their constitutions to outlaw gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act also went into effect two years prior. In Vermont specifically, only 20% of residents supported gay marriage.
Gay marriage 'was not a popular proposal,' Lippert recalled. 'It was hotly condemned and fought against by major religious groups as an affront to their religious sacraments.' One of their main fears was that churches would be forced to marry gay couples.
'Separate but equal'
The Vermont legislature was already in mid-session when the court dropped the issue of gay marriage in their laps. The House judicial committee, where Lippert served as vice chair, was tasked with writing the bill that would grant gay couples the right to marry or to form an equivalent union.
After listening to weeks of testimony from supporters and opponents of gay marriage, the committee voted to create a 'parallel legal structure,' which they named civil unions, Lippert said.
'It was very disappointing for the attorneys and advocates, but it was clear that we did not have the votes to create full marriage for same-sex couples,' said Lippert, who was among the three committee members to vote for gay marriage.
Some gay marriage advocates at the time found the idea of civil unions insulting and akin to the concept of 'Separate but equal.'
Some activists said civil unions were like 'having to sit on the back of the bus' and refused to support the bill, Lippert said. 'Others said, 'At least we're on the bus.''
The lawsuit plaintiffs and their attorneys decided 'it was better to pass something achievable than pass something that would fail and then get nothing,' Lippert said.
Elsewhere in the country: Naples Pride pleased with judge's ruling on drag show, 'a really big win'
'None of us knew we were going to win'
On the day House reps were scheduled to vote, Lippert and his committee members weren't sure if they had enough support to pass civil unions. Some representatives wouldn't share their plans, while others kept saying they 'needed more information' before they could decide which way to vote.
For some representatives, a "yes" vote guaranteed they would lose their seats in either the primary or general elections later that year.
'Until the roll call, none of us knew we were going to win,' said Lippert. 'It would have taken a few votes to switch and we would have lost.'
After 12 hours of debate and testimony that day, the Vermont house voted 76-69 to pass the civil unions bill.
Lippert primarily attributed the win to 'courageous' gay Vermonters, loved ones and other advocates who shared personal stories throughout the bill process. Some gay people even came out publicly for the first time to throw their support behind the bill.
Lippert also thinks the 'hateful phone calls and letters' legislators received made them realize why civil unions were necessary.
'They saw why we needed this,' Lippert said. 'That if this is the level of prejudice and hatefulness that comes at me, what must it be like for gay people? The hate backfired.'
Once civil unions passed the house, it was much smoother sailing for gay advocates. The senate, which had a higher percentage of Democrats than the house, passed civil unions 19-11.
Gov. Howard Dean, who already voiced his approval of civil unions, signed the bill into law soon after – albeit behind closed doors and without fanfare.
'He said publicly that marriage for same-sex couples made him uncomfortable' but that he could back civil unions, Lippert remembered. Even still, Dean's support was 'crucial.'
'If he hadn't been willing to say he would sign the bill, I don't think we would have passed it,' Lippert said. 'People wouldn't have risked voting for it.'
'Art is a form of protest': How Phoenix LGBTQ+ artists use poetry as an act of resistance
'It's hard to explain the level of controversy'
Later that year, 17 legislators who voted for civil unions in April 2000 lost their seats to opponents who promised to help repeal the institution. Dean, who had to wear a bulletproof vest during his gubernatorial campaign, also faced an ardent anti-civil unions challenger.
'It's hard to explain the level of controversy and some of the hatefulness directed at the governor and lawmakers,' Lippert said.
The following session, the now more conservative House managed to repeal civil unions by one vote, but the effort died in the Senate.
Between 2000 and 2009, thousands of gay couples from other states and nations traveled to Vermont to enter civil unions. They wanted legal recognition of their relationship somewhere even if their home state or country wouldn't respect it, Lippert said.
'At the time, I would have been happy to have settled the case in court,' Lippert said. 'But looking back, I think it would have garnered greater backlash if the court had granted gay marriage or an equivalent institution directly.'
That's what happened in Hawaii. In 1996, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage to same-sex couples. An enormous public backlash ensued, and by 1998, Hawaiians had changed their state constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
Amending Vermont's constitution wouldn't have been as easy – it takes multiple years versus only one in Hawaii – but there definitely were some lawmakers who wanted to, Lippert said. Such an amendment never got off the ground, however.
'My view is civil unions was a historic step for civil marriage for same-sex couples,' Lippert said. 'Saying that full marriage equality was important does not take away from civil unions moving us to marriage equality in a profound way.'
Lippert and his spouse eventually entered a civil union themselves. They then got married once Vermont legalized what Lippert now calls 'full marriage equality.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
16 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Southern Baptists to vote on effort to overturn same-sex marriage
Conservative Christian activists hope to build on their movement's success in overturning Roe v. Wade, the now-defunct Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, in 2022, and to apply the legal and political strategies that proved effective for that victory. Public support for legal same-sex marriage remains high, with more than two-thirds of American adults supporting it. As with abortion, activists hope to gain political power despite their minority viewpoints. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Christians are called to play the long game,' said Andrew T. Walker, an ethicist at a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky who wrote the resolution. He leads the Southern Baptist Convention's resolution committee, which coordinates proposals from Baptists around the country to be put for a vote at the annual meeting. Related : Advertisement 'There are burgeoning embryonic efforts being discussed at the legal-strategy level on how to begin to challenge Obergefell,' he said. 'How do we take the lessons from Roe that took 50 years? What is the legal strategy to overturn Obergefell at some point in the future?' Advertisement Activists are aware that their mission may take years. But the resolution calling for this concrete action shows 'a deepening of Southern Baptist thinking on this issue' and a recognition of the need for a long-term strategy similar to the one that ended a constitutional right to abortion, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He said 'there's a great deal of engagement' on this issue between Southern Baptist leaders and lawyers with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal advocacy group that worked to overturn Roe. 'As in Roe, it is not just a matter of arguing for or against abortion,' he said. 'It is also the larger pattern in terms of constitutional interpretation.' Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrated outside the US Supreme Court following the ruling on same-sex marriage, on June 26, 2015. DOUG MILLS/NYT The Southern Baptist resolution, titled 'On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family,' reflects a movement within conservative Christianity to see that laws align with their set of Biblical values and a political commitment to pursue those goals. The resolution calls for overturning not just Obergefell, but also any laws and policies 'that defy God's design for marriage and family,' potentially including the Respect for Marriage Act, a law that former President Joe Biden signed in 2022 mandating federal recognition for same-sex marriages. The resolution also specifically calls for the restriction of commercial surrogacy. Related : Lawmakers have a duty 'to pass laws that reflect the truth of creation,' it says, 'and to oppose any law that denies or undermines what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.' The measure also reflects an alignment with other Republican goals, and calls for laws that would 'strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in female athletic competition.' Advertisement Couples waited to apply for marriage licenses at Cambridge City Hall on May 17, 2004. RUTH FREMSON/NYT To go into effect, the resolution needs to pass by simple majority vote. Organizers say it is widely expected to pass. Passing the measure could be used as evidence to prove to politicians that culturally unpopular positions have support. Public opinion on same-sex marriage shifted drastically over the past 30 years toward overwhelming support. Last summer during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump had the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman removed from the Republican Party platform. 'It now seems the case in many sectors of American society that same-sex marriage is just as American as baseball and apple pie,' Walker acknowledged. 'I understand the political will is probably minute or minuscule.' Related : Of the nine Supreme Court justices, only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have suggested that the court should reconsider Obergefell, which was decided by a 5-4 majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, now a swing vote, issued a strong dissent in the Obergefell ruling. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the case that overturned Roe, Thomas directly argued that the rationale the court used to negate a right to abortion should be used to overturn cases that established rights to same-sex marriage, consensual same-sex relations and contraception. Next month Mathew Staver, a Southern Baptist and the chair of the Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group, plans to ask the Supreme Court to hear a case about Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015. That request will directly ask the court to overturn Obergefell, he said. Staver has been trying for two decades to use the courts to stop same-sex marriage, ever since states began to legalize it in 2004. Advertisement Earlier this year his group worked with legislators in Idaho on the language of a resolution that passed the Idaho House of Representatives calling on the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell. Republican lawmakers, at times drawing on certain Christian principles, introduced similar measures calling for Obergefell's reversal in states like Michigan, Montana and South Dakota, and partially passed them in North Dakota and Idaho. 'That begins to show a sentiment from legislative officials, and it just begins to build a momentum,' Staver said. And while efforts like the SBC measure and the resolutions in the states have been largely independent of each other, he said, 'that momentum results in more coordination' between ideologically aligned groups, which was effective in overturning Roe. The Southern Baptist Convention, a largely conservative network of churches, has taken a rightward turn in recent years, particularly on issues of marriage, family and sex. It has also struggled following revelations of widespread sexual abuse of women and children, and the mishandling of those allegations over decades. The annual meeting is often regarded as a bellwether for broader evangelical sentiment on various political and cultural issues, even though it technically represents the views of only the 10,000 or so members who typically attend and vote, not of all 13 million members. Last year, Southern Baptists voted to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization, passing a resolution that Walker and Mohler proposed as part of a push to advance the 'fetal personhood' movement. The vote greatly worried many other evangelicals who rely on fertility treatments to have children and who believe IVF is life-promoting. Advertisement In 2023, Southern Baptists decided to expel several churches with female pastors, including one of the denomination's largest and most prominent congregations. An attempt to further expand restrictions on women in church leadership gained traction in 2023 but did not pass a second required vote in 2024. That effort is expected to be revived this week. This article originally appeared in

USA Today
20 hours ago
- USA Today
Why did Trump deploy the National Guard to LA protests? How many have been arrested? What to know
Why did Trump deploy the National Guard to LA protests? How many have been arrested? What to know Show Caption Hide Caption Trump admin offers $1,000 to migrants who self-deport using CBP One app The move is the latest part of President Donald Trump's effort to crack down on illegal immigration. Scripps News WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump praised the National Guard for their work after violent protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's crackdown on immigration enforcement, with demonstrations set to continue into the afternoon on June 8. Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social "Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest." The message came after the president ordered thousands of troops to the area amid striking confrontations between police and demonstrators. But less than an hour after the president shared his post applauding National Guard forces, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X that the troops have not yet "been deployed in the City of Los Angeles.' Area officials have declared an unlawful assembly and responded by firing tear gas, pepper spray and flash-bang concussion rounds toward crowds gathering. Video footage of some of the protests showed dozens of green-uniformed security personnel with gas masks, lined up on a road strewn with overturned shopping carts as small canisters exploded into gas clouds. Demonstrators say the Trump administration's immigration enforcement has violated civil and human rights. The sweeping immigration efforts, a hallmark of Trump's second term, has also caught up people legally residing in the country and led to legal challenges. "Now they know that they cannot go to anywhere in this country where our people are, and try to kidnap our workers, our people – they cannot do that without an organized and fierce resistance," said protester Ron Gochez, 44. But where are the protests taking place? How is California Gov. Gavin Newsom responding? Here's what to know: More: Illegal border crossings at record lows as crackdown spreads Why did Trump call in the National Guard? Trump ordered approximately 2,000 National Guard troops to help quell the protests in Los Angeles, where helmeted police in riot gear clashed with protesters who opposed tougher federal actions against undocumented immigrants. Some protesters hurled large chunks of broken concrete at officers, slashed tires and defaced buildings, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump signed a memo June 7 deploying the guardsmen 'to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester.' 'The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs,' she said in a statement. Where are the protests taking place in LA? On June 7, a large protest erupted in the city of Paramount in Los Angeles County, about 15 miles south of downtown Los Angeles. It came as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducted enforcement operations in the area and arrested at least 44 people on alleged immigration violations. About 350 to 400 protesters had gathered and some were seen throwing objects at agents. Since then, demonstrations have widened out across parts of Los Angeles. A second protest in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday night attracted some 60 people, who chanted slogans including "ICE out of L.A.!" The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said two deputies were taken to an area hospital for injuries, but they have since been released, according to multiple reports. Demonstrators have also reported injuries. One skirmish involved the arrest of a union leader, David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union of California, who said he was injured and detained by ICE. What has Gavin Newsom said? Newsom wrote in a post on X on June 7 that the move from the federal government to deploy National Guard troops is 'purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' "LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need," Newsom wrote, alleging "This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust." How many people have been arrested? The Department of Homeland Security said that ICE operations have resulted in the arrests of 118 undocumented immigrants last week in Los Angeles, including five alleged gang members and others with criminal records for smuggling, drug trafficking and assault. Los Angeles police confirmed early on June 8 that one person had been arrested in connection with the demonstrations, along with several others who were detained but not yet formally charged, according to multiple reports. Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters


New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
Southern Baptists to Vote on Effort to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage
Southern Baptists plan to vote this week on acting to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage 10 years ago this month. The step is part of a growing effort by evangelicals nationwide to reverse Obergefell, and coincides with a renewed campaign in state legislatures to challenge the widely accepted view that same-sex marriage has become an established civil right. While the Southern Baptist Convention has long opposed gay marriage, the vote at its annual meeting in Dallas will be the first time that the largest Protestant denomination in America will ask representatives of its tens of thousands of member churches to work to end it. Conservative Christian activists hope to build on their movement's success in overturning Roe v. Wade, the now-defunct Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, in 2022, and to apply the legal and political strategies that proved effective for that victory. Public support for legal gay marriage remains high, with more than two-thirds of American adults supporting it. As with abortion, activists hope to gain political power despite their minority viewpoints. 'Christians are called to play the long game,' said Andrew T. Walker, an ethicist at a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky who wrote the resolution. He leads the Southern Baptist Convention's resolution committee, which coordinates proposals from Baptists around the country to be put for a vote at the annual meeting. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.