logo
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.

Yahoo11-06-2025
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.
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.
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.
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'
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
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.'
This article originally appeared on Burlington Free Press: Vermont civil unions paved way for US gay marriage equality
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Legal Analyst: Supreme Court asked to review same-sex marriage ruling
Legal Analyst: Supreme Court asked to review same-sex marriage ruling

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Legal Analyst: Supreme Court asked to review same-sex marriage ruling

(QUEEN CITY NEWS) — Khalif Rhodes joins us to discuss the legal stakes as the U.S. Supreme Court is formally asked—for the first time in a decade—to overturn its landmark 2015 ruling that guaranteed same-sex marriage nationwide, in a case involving former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis and questions over religious freedom and constitutional rights. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword

What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying.
What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying.

USA Today

timea day ago

  • USA Today

What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying.

The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. A recent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to overturn the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, giving the entire LGBTQ+ community reason to be fearful – even if the case is unlikely to be heard by the court. Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky, filed a petition in late July asking the court to appeal a decision that she must pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue a gay couple a marriage license after the Obergefell decision came down. According to the appeal, this infringed upon Davis' First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There are a variety of reasons gay marriage is likely safe despite this appeal, including changing opinions on the court, public support for same-sex marriage and the 2022 Respect For Marriage Act. It doesn't change the fact that the very notion of this right being overturned is a reminder to the LGBTQ+ community that our rights are dependent upon the whims of politicians and judges, and could easily disappear. I don't trust this Supreme Court to leave same-sex marriage alone In 2015, Davis wound up in jail for six days for contempt of court when she refused to grant a marriage license to gay couples in Rowan County, Kentucky. One couple who were refused a license, David Moore and David Ermold, sued Davis for violating their constitutional right to marry. Moore and Ermold were awarded $50,000 each in damages, plus $260,000 for legal fees. Davis attempted to appeal the ruling with the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals but was denied this March. She then sent her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in July, which is how we ended up here. Mat Staver, Davis' lawyer, told Fox News he believes this case will be heard by the nation's highest court based on the fact that three of the dissenting justices from Obergefell – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito – are still on the court. Other legal scholars aren't so sure that five justices are willing to overrule the case. Robbie Kaplan, a lawyer who argued in defense of LGBTQ+ rights in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 in a ruling that eventually paved the way for Obergefell, told Axios it would cause a lot more legal problems than it's worth. "It's not just a recipe for administrative chaos," Kaplan said. "It also would result in an almost indescribable amount of (needless) suffering and heartache." Opinion: I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose. I'm skeptical that the very court that sent abortion rights back to the states cares about the legal complications that a ruling like this could cause. In the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, Thomas even issued a concurrent opinion saying he believed Obergefell should be reconsidered. The Supreme Court has also asked Moore and Ermold to respond to Davis' petition, which hints at the possibility that this case could be considered by the court. Kim Davis' petition reminds us our rights are revocable Davis' appeal isn't the only attack on gay marriage since President Donald Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took the majority in Congress. Resolutions were introduced in five states that would have formally asked the Supreme Court to review Obergefell. In two of those states, Idaho and North Dakota, the resolutions passed the House of Representatives before failing in the Senate. While these measures were unsuccessful, it's a sign of growing discontent among Republican politicians with the legality of same-sex marriage. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention voted for a resolution to ask the court to reconsider gay marriage. A denomination may have no legal authority in our secular government, but the resolution signals that we should be worried. Opinion: I told you GOP would come for marriage. Southern Baptists just proved my point. The fact that these resolutions were even introduced is scary for the LGBTQ+ community. It's a sign that there are still people out there who think we shouldn't be able to marry the people we love, that our rights as couples should differ from the rights of straight couples merely based on a few verses in the Bible. It's a reminder that the rights we fought for years to gain can be reversed, that all it takes is a conservative shift in government to send us back to a time before legal gay marriage. What would happen if gay marriage were overturned? Thankfully, Democrats in 2022 passed the Respect For Marriage Act, which says that same-sex and interracial marriages must be recognized by the federal government and every state, even if Obergefell were to fall. However, the loss of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling would affect future generations of LGBTQ+ people looking to get married. If the Obergefell ruling were overturned tomorrow, same-sex marriage would become illegal in 32 states that have constitutional and/or legislative bans on marriage equality. This would affect more than half of the LGBTQ+ people in the United States. Per a May 2025 Gallup poll, 68% of Americans say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized. While this is a safe majority of people, support is down from a high of 71% in 2023 – signaling a potential shift in the acceptability of gay marriage nationwide. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. I'm also not one to believe that public support will sway the justices from hearing a case. After all, abortion rights were also widely popular, but that didn't stop the court from sending legality back to the states. Gay marriage is not going to disappear tomorrow. This does mean, however, that gay people are once again being reminded that their rights are dependent on a handful of people and the opinions of politicians and can easily be stripped away. We've already witnessed how the trans community has lost rights in a matter of months. The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. Even if it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will take up this review, the fact that an appeal was even introduced is bringing anxiety to the LGBTQ+ community – and it should be taken seriously. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say
Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say

Newsweek

time2 days ago

  • Newsweek

Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the Supreme Court is being asked to revisit the landmark ruling. Mathew Staver, counsel for petitioner Kim Davis, told Newsweek he believes the case could overturn Obergefell. However, several other legal experts say the widely accepted law is unlikely to be reversed. The Context The petitioner is Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs. Davis argues Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and that her refusal was protected under the First Amendment. Under U.S. law, a party can petition the Supreme Court to review a case after lower courts have ruled against them, typically by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court is not required to hear the case—it selects only a small fraction of petitions, often those raising significant constitutional questions, resolving conflicts among lower courts, or addressing issues with broad national impact. Davis and her legal team are asking the justices to take up her case as a vehicle to reconsider Obergefell itself. What People Are Saying Newsweek asked experts to assess the petition's chances and the legal, moral, and procedural factors that could influence the Court's decision. 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed Anthony Behar/AP Here are their exclusive responses: Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel "This case presents compelling facts for the Supreme Court to review. Kim Davis asked for a reasonable accommodation of her religious belief—to remove her name from marriage certificates. That request was granted by newly elected Governor Matt Bevin in December 2015, and in April 2016, the legislature unanimously passed a law allowing clerks to remove their names from certificates. Yet she was sued, jailed for six days, and now faces a personal judgment exceeding $360,000. "We are asking the Court to affirm her First Amendment defense and to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. We are optimistic because three current justices—Chief Justice Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—dissented in Obergefell. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, five justices ruled that substantive due process is not grounded in the Constitution and that the Court should remain neutral when the Constitution does not expressly provide a right. Obergefell is likewise grounded in that now-rejected doctrine, and the Court should remain neutral regarding marriage as it did in 2022 regarding abortion. "We need four justices for certiorari and five to win. We believe this is the case that can overturn Obergefell." William Powell, Georgetown Law "We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude Davis's arguments do not merit further attention. Marriage equality is settled law." Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley Law "I think it is unlikely the Court will overrule Obergefell, though it is possible. Marriage equality is deeply entrenched and widely accepted in American society. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito all dissented in Obergefell. I expect Thomas and Alito would vote to overturn. Roberts's position is uncertain, though the only dissent he ever read from the bench was in Obergefell. Justice Gorsuch wrote a dissent in Pavan v. Smith sharply criticizing Obergefell. What about Kavanaugh and Barrett? There may be the votes, but my instinct is the Court is unlikely to do so. It is not controversial in the way Roe v. Wade remained." Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal "This case's procedural posture is simply not an appropriate one for reconsidering Obergefell. Other cases might provide a 'cooler vehicle,' but they are nowhere near ready for Supreme Court review. While the threat is some distance off, this is a Supreme Court that has shown it will casually overturn decades of precedent and upend civil rights. "If reversed, it would create a patchwork of states where same-sex marriage is legal in some places but banned in others. The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) ensures states must recognize marriages performed elsewhere and the federal government will do the same. Public opinion now enjoys broad, majoritarian support for same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy's Obergefell opinion noted that denying marriage sends the message that families are 'lesser' and 'something of which they should feel ashamed'—a stigma the government was required to address. That belief remains relevant: you shouldn't brand classes of people as lesser simply because of who they love." Ilya Somin, George Mason University "If Obergefell were overturned, most states—due to over 70% public support—would still have same-sex marriage, but perhaps eight or nine socially conservative states would not. That would raise questions about how to handle same-sex couples who married while Obergefell was in effect. RFMA requires states to recognize marriages contracted elsewhere, but in non-issuing states it would still be a hassle. "The end of Roe was unsurprising because opponents saw abortion as akin to murder. By contrast, very few opponents of same-sex marriage assign it a moral weight equal to murder. Davis's case is weaker legally because she was a public official exercising state power. Accepting her argument could open the door to refusals for interracial or interfaith marriages on religious grounds. I doubt there are five votes to overturn Obergefell, estimating no more than two or three justices might favor it, though nothing is certain." Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP "It is very unlikely the Supreme Court will revisit Obergefell soon, though challenges will continue. Roberts once compared it to Dred Scott, but reliance interests are massive. Hundreds of thousands of couples have relied on it in arranging their most intimate and important life relationships. Overruling such a decision would create popular distrust in the judiciary. Justice Scalia believed in factoring reliance interests; Justice Thomas does not. The notion of destroying marriages and undoing family relationships would be extremely difficult for the Court to justify." What Happens Next For the Supreme Court to hear the case, at least four justices must agree to grant certiorari. The Court selects only a small fraction of petitions, focusing on those with significant constitutional issues or conflicting lower-court rulings.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store