|
The
Old Prejudice Against Same-Sex
Men and women across the nation are being denied the right to marry. It's not because they are illegal immigrants. It's not because they are criminals. It is because they are gay. Sandra Forrester, an employee of the University of Arkansas, has been in a committed relationship with her partner, Karen Johnson, for three and a half years. (Some names and identifying characteristics in this story have been changed.) Two years ago, Forrester and Johnson received a Certificate of Domestic Partnership from the town clerk in Providence Town, Mass. "We knew what the parameters were [when we got the certificate]," Forrester said. "We'd have to live in Providence Town for [the union] to be legal. But for us, it is recognized -- it is more personally recognized." Forrester expresses a common sentiment among same-sex couples. Out-of-staters have been flocking to Vermont since July 1, 2000, the day the civil union law went into effect. Within the first three months, 600 of the 800 civil unions performed in Vermont were for couples from other states. The law came to be after two lesbian couples and one gay couple sued the state for the right to marry on July 22, 1997. Two of the plaintiffs had attempted to marry that year, but were denied the right to purchase a license. Forrester said that the decision to unite in a civil union is only a little bit different than the decision to get married. "You have to worry a little more than a heterosexual couple," she said. "You've got to worry about what neighbors think, what people will say, what kids will do to your yard. "Basically, the thought process is more about how are people going to treat us. It's the actual doing it and how society reacts that you have to think about. The being in a loving relationship, being committed -- that is totally normal. Other than that, it is the same in every single way. You share your life, your decisions, your responsibilities. If you have kids you share those responsibilities. We take care of each other." --- The Vermont Supreme Court decided on December 20, 1999, in the case of Baker v. Vermont, that same-sex couples had every right under the Vermont Constitution to the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage as straight couples. The court ruled that the current law discriminated unfairly against homosexual couples. The court ordered that the State Legislature correct the inequality by either expanding the right to marry to include couples of all sexual orientations, or by passing legislation that would set up a parallel "domestic partnership" status to give gay and lesbian couples the right to register their relationship and receive the same benefits extended to heterosexual couples. Chief Justice Jeffrey L. Amestoy of the Vermont Supreme Court wrote, "The extension of the Common Benefits Clause to acknowledge plaintiffs as Vermonters who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity." Legislators began drafting a bill, and on April 11, 2000, after several readings of the proposed bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a two-part amendment to the Vermont constitution. The amendment defined marriage as"the legal union of one man and one woman." This created a means by which legislators could set up a distinctly separate domestic partnership status for same-sex couples. Legislators believed that defining marriage and creating a parallel status for same-sex couples would be less controversial than expanding the definition of the word marriage to include same-sex couples. The compromise gave homosexual couples all of the state given rights of marriage, like inheritance and next-of-kin status, and at the same time, preserved the traditional definition of marriage. "I
thought it would be easier for the state to digest," said
Republican Tom Little, who helped draft the law. The bill was signed in private. "In politics, bill signings are triumphal," Dean said. "They represent overcoming of one side over another. These celebrations, as the subject of the matter of the bill, will be private." --- The
law went into effect over a weekend. Clerks in seven of the
260 communities in Vermont opened their offices to accommodate
couples wanting to get licenses. Clerks in five other communities
resigned, threatened to resign or refused to issue the licenses,
saying it went against their moral and religious beliefs. Sheltra promised to find legal advice as to how the clerk could avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples, as would be required by law. The congresswoman was not the only member of the legislature who opposed the law. Following the passage of the law, Sheltra organized a political action committee in an effort to block the first civil union ceremonies from taking place. Sheltra, along with 11 members of the Vermont House, also filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law. Sheltra charged that several state representatives had participated in a betting pool regarding how many votes the civil union bill would receive. On the day of the betting pool, Sheltra alleged, the bill received preliminary approval on a vote of 76 to 69. Sheltra's
lawsuit also claimed that State Representative William Lippert,
the only openly gay member of the Vermont Legislature, had a
conflict of interest and should have been disqualified from
voting on the bill. --- Karen Johnson leaned back in her chair and petted her white Persian cat, one of the five animals she and Forrester share. It took her a moment to answer the question of whether giving legal status to civil unions will change people's opinions of homosexual relationships. "It's still a matter of personal view," Johnson said finally. "People don't understand it. If they don't accept it at this point, it being legal wouldn't make a difference. "The general concept is that we are going to ruin anyone we come in contact with. That's the general perception." Johnson's answer was interrupted by a phone call. "It's Susan and Laura," Sandra Forrester told Johnson. "They wanted to meet us at the bar, but I asked them if they minded coming over here to get interviewed first. "It will be interesting to see how they answer the questions. They've been together for a lot longer than us, and they are more open about their relationship." A few minutes later, Susan Davis and Laura Smith arrived and joined the conversation. Davis and Smith appeared to be a little bit older than Forrester and Johnson. Davis said being in a homosexual relationship in Arkansas is sometimes a struggle, despite the fact that she and her partner consider themselves "out." "This is a small community, and you get 30,000 or 50,000 people and it is pretty easy to go into a restaurant and see people who you know -- straight folks that you know, people that you work with. You can make things pretty uncomfortable for yourself," Davis said as she ran her hand through her graying hair. "You still don't flaunt [being gay]. There were people in my office who knew I was gay and could have cared less. But there were also people who just didn't ever say it." Davis, a social worker, and Smith, an accountant, committed themselves to each other and exchanged rings 12 years ago. The couple met at the birthday party of a mutual friend, when Smith's dog peed on Davis' foot. Davis and Smith laughed heartily and finished each other's sentences as they reminisced about their first meeting. "She seemed to be a really good sport about [my dog peeing on her foot]," Smith said. "She seemed to have a good sense of humor. I thought that was a good sign." After sharing a moment of levity, Davis returned her attention to more serious thoughts about her life with Smith. "We have married each other privately," Davis said. "If anyone were to ask us, and it was any of their business, we would say, 'Yes, we are married.'" --- Davis and Smith consider themselves married, but the federal government does not. Nor does it recognize a civil union or domestic partnership, regardless of whether or not the union is legally binding in the state in which it was made. In 1996, shortly before Election Day, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. The act defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. DOMA, as the act is called, exempts other states from the constitutional requirement that the marriage be recognized across state lines. A Vermont civil union, therefore, does not give a same-sex couple any of the benefits, protections or responsibilities granted to married spouses by the federal government. It is also unlikely that any other state will recognize a civil union unless ordered to by the courts. Since DOMA was passed, several states have passed "mini-domas" that prohibit same-sex marriages. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, as of June 20, 2000, Arkansas was one of 32 states that had passed anti-gay and anti-marriage laws. --- The debate over civil unions has created a rift among Vermont residents. Republican State Representative Oreste Valsangiacoma said residents were shocked the bill ever became law. "If this kind of behavior ever becomes the norm, then the human race is going to disappear from the face of the earth," Valsangiacoma said, following the passage of the bill. One opponent, speaking at a "Take Back Vermont" rally in front of the state house, characterized the law as "state-sanctioned sodomy." Late last summer, opponents of the law began gathering and forming groups like Who Would Have Thought, Standing Together and Reclaiming the State and Take it to the People. The groups' purposes were to rally enough support to remove the lawmakers who supported civil unions. Who Would Have Thought and Take it to the People were responsible for an onslaught of "Take Back Vermont" signs that appeared along highways and roadways around the state. The groups hoped the signs would encourage voters to defeat those who had voted for the bill. The "Take Back Vermont" campaign seemed to have had an effect. Five Republican state legislators who had supported the law were defeated in the September primary. One Democrat who had opposed the law was also defeated. Sixty-five-year-old Marion Milne was one of the five Republican casualties. Milne, a grandmother of seven, said that she knew when she cast her vote that the cost might be her job. Despite that, Milne said she had done the right thing. Democratic Gov. Howard Dean, however, remains in office. Dean garnered more than 50 percent of the vote in his race against Republican Ruth Dwyer, who promised to overturn the civil union law. "The people of Vermont clearly don't believe what we believe, and we've got to accept that," Dwyer told supporters as she conceded defeat. A February 2000 poll revealed that Vermonters were almost evenly divided on the issue of civil unions. Another poll in April of the same year concluded that 52 percent of Vermonters opposed the law, while 43 percent supported it. --- Opponents of Vermont civil unions are not limited to residents of Vermont. Sam Morris, a graduate student in business administration at the University of Arkansas, said he is personally opposed to the idea of same-sex civil unions. "As a married man, it offends me to think that two women could have the same rights as me and my wife," Morris said. "Now, does that mean I'm against a gay man or a gay woman's rights as an individual? No. I think we are all equal. But I do not believe they are entitled to the rights of a married couple." Morris said he believes America will have a female president before gay marriages become legal, but he definitely thinks it will happen during his lifetime. "That is the way our society is progressing. I think as a whole, our country has become more accepting. I think that is positive in one regard, but, on the other hand, as a Christian, I think it is unfortunate that same sex marriages will one day be accepted," Morris said. "I heard a statistic that gay Americans make up 10 or 15 percent of our population, and I think their issues are front burner. They care passionately about their lifestyles, and I think we'll see [the federal legalization of same-sex marriages] in 30 years. More people are accepting of it, and I think it will become law, and personally, I think that is unfortunate." Morris said even if same-sex marriages do become legal, it will not change his opinion, and he doubts it will change the opinions of others either. "This is just coming from one man, but I don't think the law holds much ground in that aspect. Just because the government recognizes [same-sex marriages] doesn't mean I will. I don't think it will change anything at all. If I see two men walking down the street with the same rings, the fact that it is legal doesn't change my mind. It doesn't make it right." --- Forrester hopes that some day, civil union ceremonies will be called marriages, and federal rights that go along with marriages will extend to gay couples. But, she does not think the legalization of gay marriages will justify homosexual relationships for many people, or change people's opinions about homosexuality. "I think people would take it for granted and accept [gay marriages] if they were legalized, but the majority would still have a problem with it because of their beliefs," Forrester said. "It would make a small difference, but not a big one. "The biggest difference between our relationship and heterosexual relationships is that people think because you are not procreating, you are not in a real relationship. They don't give any validity to [a homosexual relationship]." Davis agreed. "It's going to be a long time in coming. Racism is still vivid. It's very prevalent. And I think personally, that as long as you have people out there teaching prejudices, it is going to be very hard to change. And homosexuality is getting into deep-rooted Christian values. "I've seen a lot of changes since I've been out, but there are still a lot of similarities," Davis said, as she leaned down to pet Forrester's black cocker spaniel. "If someone was to decide tomorrow that they were gay, it would be very difficult for them to meet people." --- Many gay and lesbian couples are excited about the progress made in the fight for gay rights. But for many, the fight is far from over. The 1980s saw two major cases that defined the state of gay rights. Homosexual behavior was criminalized in the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, in which the court affirmed a state's right to prosecute consenting adults for engaging in sodomy. In another case in Minnesota, a woman named Sharon Kowalski was severely disabled in an accident. Kowalski's parents forbade her longtime companion, Karen Thompson, from visiting their daughter. It took Thompson five years to gain legal visitation rights. Spousal rights are still a point of contention with same-sex marriage advocates. In Baker v. Vermont, attorney Susan Murray, who represented the plaintiffs, explained that even if same-sex couples take every precaution to draw up the proper legal documents, there is still some question as to whether those documents will be respected. "If you are willing to leave everything to your [heterosexual partner], no one questions it," Murray said. "When you have a gay couple, there is often a presumption that the will was written under duress. So, there is always the unnerving feeling that some family member or doctor who disapproves of your life will challenge your decisions." --- Legal protection is a major concern for most same-sex couples. Johnson and Forrester are no different. "It's really very stressful," Johnson said. "I own my house, and if I died, my family could come in and take everything. [Forrester] would have no legal right to anything. You have to do what you can to protect yourself from that sort of thing happening. "It's not having the whole legal protection, knowing that you are buying a house together. Will they help you, banks and so forth? "I can put her name on a quit claim deed, or I can put something in my will, but that puts her in an inheritance tax. It's not a matter of being a married couple because we're not." Johnson said. Forrester nodded her head and listened intently until Johnson had finished speaking. "If [Johnson] were in the hospital and something was wrong with her, I couldn't do anything," Forrester said. "I couldn't make any decisions." --- Gay and lesbian activists made several strides toward equality during the 1990s. But, for every two steps forward, there seemed to be a step back. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent homosexual couples from obtaining marriage licenses. In 1999, however, the court ruled that its previous decision had been rendered moot after a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman passed. In 1998, an Alaska court ruled that marriage was a fundamental right. The court ruled that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying amounted to sex discrimination. The Alaska court decision was also negated by a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1998. --- "There has been a lot of change, but the change has been very slow," Davis said. "It's become more political. I've met some ladies in their 70s and 80s who have just recently come out, and it is pretty interesting. Fifty years ago, one person really took the role of a male -- they bound their chest, wore men's clothes, wore men's shoes, worked in men's jobs." Davis
and Smith said they treat their relationship like any other
married couple would. They have pictures of each other on their
desks at work, and as far as they are concerned, they are a
happily married couple. "When
I can claim her on my taxes, I will do it. As far as I am concerned,
we are married, so having a piece of paper is irrelevant. It
will only become relevant when I get the legal benefits of married
couples," Davis said. --- Both couples said they try to avoid making too much of their relationships. "We don't make it an issue for our families. They accept us for who we are and that we are gay. Why push it? There comes a point. There are some things that you don't push," Davis said. "We actually do pretty well together. The biggest obstacle was [Smith's] family accepting her life. Once you overcome the family accepting it, it's a piece of cake. Both of us do not hide the fact that we live with a woman." Smith and Davis said they had never told their families they considered themselves married, although their families are aware that they wear matching rings and own a house together. Smith said even her grandmother has begun to accept the relationship. "My grandmother was really confused at first," Smith said. "But now, she calls her, 'your Susan.' She says, 'How's your Susan?' "I think they have come to accept us as people and they are our family, and they love us, and they just want us to be happy." --- Forrester put her hand on Johnson's knee as she pondered the question. Forrester has a twin brother who is also gay. Telling her mother about her relationship with Johnson was very difficult. "My mom looks at it like it is her fault. She did not raise us to be like that," Forrester said. Forrester's family found out she had exchanged rings with Johnson at her little sister's wedding. "They accept it, but they don't really consider it a marriage," she said. --- The next step in the fight for spousal rights will most likely come when a couple, joined in Vermont, demand their state recognize the union. After looking at her watch, Davis stands up and stretches. She asked the other women if they were ready to go. She said she knows it will be a long time before she and Smith can go out in public and enjoy each other's company without worrying about discrimination. She does not think homosexuality will ever be totally accepted. "We're going to catch your children and make them perverts," Davis said. "The Jeffrey Dahmers of the world have done so much [for the image of gays and lesbians]. You've got people like that who are sick, and that gets a lot of publicity." Johnson said she wishes people would stop obsessing about other people's relationships. "I don't go around worrying about or thinking about what my co-workers do at home in their bedrooms with their wives. "I would just really like for people to stop worrying about it. Who cares? Why do people care what other people do in their bedrooms? That's what I would like to see change," Johnson said. Forrester is a little more optimistic about the future. "I think gay marriages will one day be recognized federally," Forrester said. "But, I think it will be 20 years down the road. It's already starting. That's why I don't think it will be that long. "When my mom found out about [our marriage], she was pissed, but now all of the Christmas presents from my family come to both of us."
cable
access TV ~ art:
the anti-drug ~ dark
side of tanning a
student publication of the lemke journalism department editor:
vicki wattles ~ webmaster: liz norell © 2001 |
