Is this trip necessary?
We’ve been following the whole debate about same-sex marriage along with everyone else, mulling over the positives and negatives. On balance, we think there are far fewer reasons to oppose it than support such a change, but it’s one of those subjects that raises a lot of passions on both sides of the question. That’s why we think the best way to sort this one out is to leave it to a public referendum, as has been suggested by Kevin Mullin, a state senator from Rutland, and who showed us a real “profile in courage” moment when he supported the bill when it got voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. He may pass a political price for that vote from disgruntled former supporters. A referendum would be the one true way of finding out what the real will of the state is on this question.
It’s quite clear that if it’s left to the Legislature, there will be a same-sex marriage law for Governor Douglas to sign. That would make Vermont the first state in the nation to have a same-sex marriage possibility that was passed by an act of the Legislature, as opposed to a judicial decision by a court of law. Douglas will then be placed in the position of having to sign it, veto it, or let it become law without his signature. None of those options are winners for him, which may be part of the whole idea.
Our first reaction to this issue is one of tolerance. Life is short, and if marrying a partner of the same sex is what works for two people, we’re inclined to give it a wave and a “God bless.” If it’s not harming somebody else or the people directly involved, then so what? Live and let live.
That’s still our basic feeling, but we wonder if there is another way to go about this. We haven’t seen any “Take back Vermont” movement emerging yet. We don’t think we will. We’ve all come a long way on this issue over the past decade. But it’s clear there are still strong feelings about this under the surface veneer of liberal, tolerant Vermont, and those voices deserve a hearing too. It would be fascinating to see what an actual poll of Vermonter’s feelings were on this issue. Our guesss is that opinion is pretty evenly divided.
In a perfect world, we wish the Legislature hadn’t chosen this moment to distract its attention from focusing on the very serious economic problems of the state. We know legislators think they can do two things at once — economic problem-solving and same-sex marriage — unfortunately the track record shows that they have a tough time even getting one thing right at a time. Every minute that state legislators aren’t focused on fixing the many problems the state is facing is hard to justify at a time when unemployment rates are high and people are worried about losing their jobs. The highest and best use of our lawmaker’s time would be spent hacking through the difficult knot of problems surrounding downsizing the state government so that it is sustainable — i.e.; the government runs roughly in balance in terms of what it spends and what the financial capacity of the state is to support it. If you want to re-grow the government, first help to grow the pie that it feeds off of. So let’s not get too diverted from that task by the culture war of same-sex marriage, please.
We would feel better if lawmakers had decided to take this up at nearer the end of the session, after they had grappled with the economic and government reform issues. But that’s water under the bridge now. What makes more sense would be to put this to a public vote. Ordinarily we aren’t always fond of this approach — it has wreaked havoc in California, a referendum-happy state —but this is a case where it may make some sense. It would make for a more accepted result by the losing side.
For two people of the same gender who find themselves in a committed, loving relationship that has endured for at least a few years, we don’t see the harm in going forward from a civil union to a formal marriage. Nor is there any evidence that a same-sex couple can’t be terrific parents, and the harmonious household they can craft is probably a better place for children than that likely to be supplied by unhappily married “traditional” husbands and wives. We don’t buy into the Biblical interpretation that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and we don’t see where the institution of traditional marriage between a man and a woman is under any kind of threat from the relative handful of people who might want to opt for a same sex marriage. In the same breath, let’s also be aware that traditional marriages play an important role in gluing a society together. A good deal of our major social issues today, from educational underachievement all the way along the spectrum of anti-social, lawbreaking behavior is heavily influenced by family. It’s just something to think about before we move on.
We don’t think there’s any major downside risk to the economy of the state should Vermont become the first state to have its legislature craft a law which sanctifies same-sex marriage. For every potential tourist who skips Vermont because of that we’ll probably pick up other visitors who will be excited by it. Certainly the tourist economy didn’t suffer because of the divisive civil unions debate of 2000. It because of 9/11, but not because of civil unions.
We urge the legislature to get through this quickly. The senate Judiciary Committee got things off to a good start last week. But if it should become bogged down in a lot of rancor and debate when the bill goes to the House, the public referendum option deserves a serious hearing.