Ralph Webb
September 4, 2007
A new 11-member commission studying whether Vermont is ready for same-sex marriage incredibly contains at best one member who supports the traditional definition of marriage, and the only clergy member is an Episcopal priest involved in a same-sex “civil union.” Vermont legislative leaders left out religious people with more traditional views on marriage, on the grounds that the latter allegedly lacked an “open mind” and their involvement in the study supposedly would be “counterproductive.”
This one-sided exclusion illustrates well the dangers to democracy when either aggressive proponents of one point of view ignore any religious belief contrary to their own position or an aggressive secularism seeks to drive religious believers and religious arguments out of the public square. The supposed champions of “diversity” end up radically narrowing the diversity that can be expressed. And the proponents of “inclusion” effectively exclude a large portion of their fellow citizens from the political process. All citizens are impoverished by this constriction of democratic debate.
Vermont Same-Sex Marriage Skirmishes
The new commission has been appointed to hold several public hearings on same-sex marriage and issue a follow-up report with recommendations to the Vermont legislature. It met for the first time on August 23. The first hearing tentatively is planned for either late September or early October.
The commission undoubtedly will serve as the latest volley in Vermont’s continuing skirmishes over same-sex relationships. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to grant same-sex couples benefits equivalent to those of marriage. A year later, the legislature complied with that order by creating “civil unions” for such couples.
But “[t]he 2000 civil union debate was so divisive it cost Democrats control of the House at election time that year,” according to an article on the commission in the August 12 Burlington Free Press. Two later attempts to push through same-sex marriage “were rebuffed by legislative leaders who were leery of the time and energy the contentious issue would take up.”
A January 2006 poll by the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force (VFMTF), a same-sex marriage advocacy group, revealed a deeply divided state citizenry: 42 percent supported same-sex marriage, 11 percent leaned toward supporting it, 37 percent opposed it, and 3 percent leaned toward opposing it. Significant differences were found along gender, political party affiliation, and income lines. For example, 47 percent of women supported same-sex marriage versus 36 percent of men; 55 percent of Democrats did the same versus 17 percent of Republicans. Support for same-sex marriage was highest (54 percent) among respondents making $75,000 to $100,000 a year, and lowest (31 percent) among those making under $15,000.
Earlier this year, a bill was introduced in both the state House (H.275) and Senate (S.80) that would change the definition of marriage from “the legally recognized union of one man and one woman” to “the legally recognized union of two people.” The “Commission on Family Recognition and Protection” apparently was formed in part as a response to the new bill.
According to the August 24 Free Press, the commission has three goals:
- Examine the basis for creating a separate legal structure for same-sex couples-civil unions.
- Evaluate the social and historical significance of being married versus joined in civil union.
- Study the legal and practical challenges for couples in civil unions compared with married, heterosexual couples.
A Monolithic Commission
The diversity of beliefs among Vermont citizens apparently did not greatly influence—if it influenced at all—the assembling of the commission. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Symington and Democratic Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin told the Free Press that they did not take candidates’ views on same-sex marriage into account when appointing members to the commission. Nevertheless, when making those decisions, they held conference calls with VFMTF chairwoman Beth Robinson. The end result: all original 10 members of the commission support same-sex marriage.
Those members of the commission express no uncertainty about their beliefs. According to the Free Press, two of them (Michael Vinton, former Democratic state representative, and Mary Ann Carlson, former Democratic state senator) dismissed the possibility of changing their minds. A third member, Burton Frye, a quarry owner, said that only a clear indication that the majority of Vermont citizens oppose same-sex marriage would move him. Democratic state representative Johanna Donovan and others expressed confidence that most Vermont citizens agree with the commission members’ position, despite the highly mixed results of the VFMTF poll.
And so it’s telling that the commission does not see itself as addressing if Vermont should have same-sex marriage, but rather whether there are any reasons not to have it. Tom Little, former Republican state representative and chair of the commission, previously was chair of the House Judiciary Committee responsible for drafting the civil unions law. Even before the commission’s first meeting, he said, “The way I’m framing the issue is, are there any good reasons grounded in law or morality or ethics that point to why we shouldn’t do this?” In other words, the burden of proof is left on those who support traditional marriage, not those who favor same-sex marriage.
Subsequent criticisms of the commission’s lack of diversity bothered Symington enough to appoint one additional member, former Republican state senator John Bloomer, who might provide an alternative viewpoint. The operative word here is might. According to the Free Press, “Symington said appointing anyone firmly opposed to same-sex marriage was not considered, because that would have been counterproductive.” The House speaker did not clarify why it would be “counterproductive” to have a diversity of views on a commission that was supposed to be consulting the whole citizenry as it studied a potentially divisive issue—although it no doubt relates to Little’s stated objective.
Religious Discrimination
Symington’s exclusion extended to people of faith who oppose same-sex marriage. Roman Catholic Bishop Salvatore Matano of the Diocese of Burlington expressed his willingness to serve on the commission. Nevertheless, the Free Press reported Symington as rejecting the idea of appointing a clergy member who opposes same-sex marriage: “The Catholic bishop … cannot by the nature of his position have an open mind about the issue. ‘That would be an impossible position to put the bishop in,’ Symington said.”
The same exclusion does not apply to clergy who support same-sex marriage, much less those who live in a civil union:
The Rev. Nancy Vogele, an Episcopal minister in White River Junction, is apparently the only gay member of the commission. She said she has a civil union and would like marriage herself, but emphasized that the commission’s work is not about her. “I think we’re here to listen to what Vermonters have to say.”
The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Vermont is heavily, if unsurprisingly, supportive of same-sex marriage. Twenty-four of its clergy, including Vogele, have signed the VFMTF’s “Vermont Declaration of Religious Support for the Freedom of Same-Gender Couples to Marry.” That number is surpassed only by the clergy support from the United Church of Christ. A 2004 Diocese of Vermont task force report on same-sex blessings equated civil unions with marriage: “What is blessed is the same. What is asked of the couple is the same. What is asked of the community is the same love and support.” The report also contained two “trial liturgies” for civil unions.
Multiple Losers
Despite enough recent opposition to same-sex marriage to lead one commission member (Donovan) to say “I would never want to see us go through the anger of last time,” the commission seems set to recommend advancing the cause of same-sex marriage in some manner. (The commission members, it should be noted, are not to vote “yes” or “no” regarding same-sex marriage.) Yet Symington and some of the commission members have said that the commission can be trusted to listen to Vermont citizens’ views on the issue and even recommend against such “marriage” if the majority of citizens oppose it.
At the same time, Symington clearly did not trust supporters of traditional marriage to be fair, and she condescendingly dismissed them from consideration. Furthermore, she intentionally chose not to question anyone under consideration for the commission about their views on same-sex marriage. Consequently, even if they were supportive of traditional marriage in the past (as Bloomer was), their views might have changed.
What is the result when you combine an avoidance of asking potential commission members their beliefs on same-sex marriage with a stated opposition to appointing anyone who stands for traditional marriage? It might well be a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for any members who support traditional marriage if they want to stay on the commission. It’s not difficult to imagine an intense pressure on marriage conservatives to keep their views under wraps.
Even more disturbing is the bias shown by the legislative leaders against people of faith who oppose same-sex marriage. Symington apparently believes she saved Matano from occupying “an impossible position” by never considering him (and, presumably, anyone else who has religious objections to same-sex marriage) for the commission. She also outrageously assumes that Matano would lack an “open mind,” although the absence of quotes around that phrase in the original article leaves open the possibility that the reporter’s view is presented instead of Symington’s. As is all too common among progressives, the Roman Catholic Church gets stereotyped implicitly as a backwards totalitarian institution that clamps down on members’ freedom of thought.
Others might raise another issue entirely: whether the legislative leaders and their commission appointees have enough respect for religious beliefs to faithfully represent the people of Vermont. They well might not find the assurances of several council members that the latter group will set aside their personal views if necessary reassuring, even if those members truly are good listeners. In fact, critics have wasted no time in calling the commission a sham.
There are several losers in this situation. The first is Vermont citizens who favor retaining the traditional definition of marriage. To say that the political deck is stacked against them is an understatement. Consequently, the second group to suffer is all Vermont citizens, since an impartial report by the commission is almost impossible to expect.
The third loser here is the American tradition of religious freedom and religious tolerance. When any person of faith is excluded from such a commission for the reasons given (or similar reasons), then a wall is being raised even higher to keep some citizens out of the political process. And that wall is discriminatory; it excludes only faithful members of those churches that disagree with the state. So orthodox religions are a fourth loser here (clearly orthodox Christianity, but also other traditional faiths); they are viewed as untrustworthy and backwards.
The Vermont commission’s lack of differing views, including differing religious views, on same-sex marriage is greatly troubling. Most disturbingly, this is a situation that could, in the long run, take America down the same path as England, where orthodox Christian institutions are now required by law to support homosexual practice against their religious beliefs. Those who consider such a slippery slope warning to be far-fetched need only look at New Jersey for a current example in the United States.
No comments yet
