|
|
|
Yay! Woohoo! Printed in today's Chicago Tribune.
www.chicagotribune.com
Vt. high court backs
rights for gay couples
By Christopher Graff
The Associated Press
December 20, 1999 11:44 a.m. CST
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Gay couples must be
granted the same benefits and protections given
married couples of the opposite sex, the Vermont
Supreme Court ruled today.
The court said the Legislature will determine
whether such benefits will come through formal
marriage or a system of domestic partnerships.
"We hold that the state is constitutionally required to
extend to same-sex couples the common benefits
and protections that flow from marriage under
Vermont law," the justices said.
Whatever marriage or domestic partnership system
is chosen by the Legislature, the court said, "must
conform with the constitutional imperative to afford
all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and
security of the law."
Earlier this month, Hawaii's Supreme Court slammed
the door on gay marriages in that state, once
considered most likely to legalize same-sex unions.
Hawaii's high court said the issue was resolved by a
1998 amendment to the state constitution against gay
marriages.
Vermont was the only other state whose top court
was considering the issue, and today's ruling had
been anxiously awaited by both sides in the highly
charged debate over same sex marriages.
Today's ruling stems from a suit filed in July 1997 by
three couples -- one of gay men and two of lesbians
-- after they were denied marriage licenses by their
local town clerks. The clerks acted on the advice of
the state attorney general, who relied on a 1975
opinion by a predecessor calling same sex marriages
unconstitutional.
The three couples first filed suit in Chittenden
County Superior Court but a judge rejected their
claims. The couples then appealed to the Supreme
Court, which heard arguments in the case 13 months
ago.
The couples argued that their inability to get married
denied them more than 300 benefits at the state level
and more than 1,000 at the federal level. The
Supreme Court acknowledged that, saying the
benefits included "access to a spouse's medical, life,
and disability insurance, hospital visitation and other
medical decisionmaking privileges, spousal support,
intestate succession, homestead protections, and
many other statutory protections."
Today's ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court since the Vermont court based its
decision on the state Constitution. The Vermont
Supreme Court is the state's only appeals court.
The decision places the issue before the Legislature,
which will convene next month for its 2000 session.
Gov. Howard Dean has declined to state a position
on same sex marriages, saying that he was awaiting
the decision of the court. But the lieutenant
governor, Douglas Racine, and the speaker of the
Vermont House, Michael Obuchowski, have said
they favor same sex marriages.
Today's decision, written by Chief Justice Jeffrey
Amestoy, acknowledges the controversy swirling
around the issue of same-sex marriages. It is "a
question that the court well knows arouses deeply
felt religious, moral, and political beliefs," the
justices said in their decision.
In 1993, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that the
state's failure to recognize gay marriages amounted
to gender discrimination.
The ruling set off pre-emptive legislating around the
nation. Lawmakers feared that gay couples would
fly to Hawaii to get married and that the 49 other
states would then have to recognize those marriages.
At least 30 states banned gay marriages, and
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act,
which denied federal recognition of homosexual
marriage and allowed states to ignore same-sex
unions licensed elsewhere.
Advocates of same sex marriage had high hopes for
the Vermont case because the state is considered a
leader in laws protecting gay rights. Vermont has
passed laws prohibiting discrimination against gays in
employment, housing, and public accommodations
and a law that punishes hate crimes against
homosexuals.
The issue divided the court. While all five justices
agreed that gay couples should receive the same
benefits as granted couples of the opposite sex, three
of the justices joined a concurring opinion written by
Justice John Dooley that challenged the reasoning
behind Amestoy's decision.
And Justice Denise Johnson wrote a separate
opinion saying the court had not gone far enough.
She said the court recognizes that gays are entitled
to certain rights and "yet declines to give them any
relief other than an exhortation to the Legislature to
deal with the problem." Johnson said she would
require town clerks to issue marriage licenses to
same-sex couples.
Copyright 1999 The Associated Press
56 responses total.
yay! WOOOOOHOOOO! YIPPIE! // I'm wondering, does anyone know the status of same-sex marriages in other countires?
I thought there was at least one country, perhaps Holland, that had something "like that"
There was a picture in some newspaper, I think the NY Times, a while back, of the "first ever gay wedding" in Amsterdam. So it was made legal there a while back, at least. I haven't heard anything on the topic since, so I don't know if that law's changed or not.
PROGRESS OF PARTNERSHIP LIST In countries listed partnership laws are in effect or passed DENMARK Population 5.2 mill. Law in effect 1 October 1989, Folketinget adopts Registered Partnership 26 May 1989 NORWAY Pop. 4.3 mill. in effect 1 August 1993, Stortinget legalized Registered Partnership 1 April 1993. SWEDEN Pop. 8.7 mill. in effect 1 January 1995, Riksdagen legalized Registered Partnership 7 June 1994. GREENLAND, DK, adopted Danish Partners Act 26 April 1996, - Nordic countries recognized each others acts Aug. 1995. HUNGARY Pop. 10.3 mill. Passed 21 May 1996 by Magyar Orszaggyules: Legal protection of Common Law Marriage ICELAND Pop. 263.000, 27 June 1996, The Icelandic Althingi voted for "Recognized Partnership" 4 June 1996. HAWAII - US State Pop. 1.2 mill. Hawaiian Legislature enacted 8 June 1997 "Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship" THE NETHERLANDS Pop. 15.3 mill. In effect 1 January 1998. Passed "Registration of Partnership" Act 9 July 1997. FRANCE Pop. 55 mill. Civil Solidarity-pacts "PaCS" adopted October 13 1999: PaCS in effect November 17 1999. BELGIUM Pop. 10 mill. Partner measure (Statutory Cohabitation Contract) in effect the 4th January 2000 This is a little outdated. Denmark was the first country with legal gay marriage, though (copenhagen was where the first service was held). source: http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/
Ah, yes, America, progressive land of forward thinking.
Interesting, to see the euphemistic contortions up there....I especially like "Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship."
very very interesting....
Dan sent me this email today: As you probably know, the Supreme Court of Vermont recently ruled that committed same sex relationships should have the same rights and privileges afforded to married straight couples. There are over 1,000 rights that come with marriage which are currently denied to gay couples - - including hospital visitation/medical decisions, rights of survivorship, filing joint tax returns, etc. This is a VERY important first step towards equality in America. However, the Governor's office of Vermont has been BOMBARDED with phone calls by anti-gay individuals opposing the recent decision - - primarily fueled by the "Doctor" Laura radio program which gave out the phone number. The Governor's office reports that only a HANDFUL of callers have expressed SUPPORT for this huge step towards equal rights. Please take the time to contact the Governor's office and register your support on this vital issue. Governor Howard Dean's office - (802) 828-3333 8AM-4PM. FAX (802) 828-3339 or e-mail the Lieutenant Governor - Douglas A. Racine at ltgov@leg.state.vt.us with a brief note to register your support.
I know this irrelevant, but I simply must say it: Laura Schlessinger is a MAJOR proponent of the Ten Commandments. One of the Ten Commandments concerns lying (bearing false witness). While she DOES a doctorate, and so the title "Dr." is technically licit, it's in a field that is utterly irrelevant to what she alleges to be expert in (relationship psychology and religion). So when does God zap her? =}
Yeah, I can't listen to her show. Her advice is so completely wacked.
Ok, I know I'm inviting flames but how educated must you be to follow a moral code? I listen to her, and while she does not tolerate the sexual preference I am, I do find the advice she dishes out to be very sound..sometimes. In defense of the Commandments, God wrote them down in a simple easy to understand format. Thou shalt not kill. What part of that don't you get? It's not like God wrote a paragraph of clauses and conditions explaining the conditions when it is OK to kill and or bump off your neighbor. Some of the drips who call that show are idiots. "Is it OK to shun my neighbor because his cat is blue?" Not quite that bad, but you get the idea. You don't like Dr. Laura? Don't listen and leave her as what she is: entertainment for the weak of mind and spirit. Why do I listen? It's a human train wreck. I cannot bear to turn away. Some of her callers don't have a moral compass. fortunatly, I do.
I don't listen to her because I don't like her. I was just saying that her advice sucks. I have NOTHING against the Commandments, either, but the point wasn't even about this. I simply posted that message, didn't write it. The reason they've been bombarded is because a Christian radio personality gave out the number and said she was against it. So, this mail has been circulated to say, "Hey! Why don't we call up and *support* it?" It's not an attack against Dr. Laura. So, yes, I know how to turn a radio knob, omni.
What stations is Dr. Laura on?
She's on NPR.
WJR, 12pm to 3pm. I'm not attacking you, Sarah. I was indicting her weak of spirit listeners who can't seen to find thier way out of a wet paper bag. Morality is so easy to follow because there are no gray areas; either it is right or wrong. The idiots who call her can't seem to get a handle on that concept. Dr. Laura is successful for the same reason Judge Judy is. They have a big mouth and they use it. You only need to watch one Judge Judy to get my point. Her clientele aren't exactly rocket scientists, either. I mean, they know going in that she's going to admonish them for thier lack of reason, and the TV show just gives her that forum in which to be loud and in thier faces. Same goes for Joe Brown, Mills Lane, Greg Mathis, and everyone I missed. I must admit that I do like Mills Lane, though.
No gray areas regarding morality? On what planet?
I echo Katie's point. (I knew you weren't attacking me. I always come off as defensive since I tend to favor declarative sentences and state my opinion). ;-)
(Actually, the main thing that bugs me about Dr. Laura is her tendency towards a black-and-white idea of morality. I guess you don't get to be a succesful advice person by waffling uncontrollably, but still....)
My point being: Dr. Laura, in calling ehrself "Dr.", is telling a "white lie." One of the commandments bans lying. If there's no moral gray, then Laura Schlessinger is a hypocrite.
That very same Bible says "Pick the mote out of your own eye before you pick the beam from your neighbor's eye" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Ok she's a hypocrite. Let that be between her and God. I'm sure that He will sort her out when her time comes. You still don't have to listen, Paul. re 16- In my world, things are either right or they are wrong. I don't fool myself with all kinds of excuses about why I should do something I shouldn't. Like I'm not going to go rob a bank just because I think I need a little pocket change. Why should I speed on the freeway when I know that doing so is against the law? True it hurts no one to speed, that is, unless you hit something, but if you have control of your car, speeding is a victimless crime. But it is still wrong to speed. I'm sure I can find a lot of people who wil tell you that it is thier right to drive as fast as they can and that the government has no right to tell me how fast I can drive.
Okay, that's *your* little world. In the real world, morals have gray areas. Just look around you. People are always coming up with excuses for changing their morals in certain situations. And I'm sure Paul doesn't listen to her for the very reasons he's listing. He's not saying that he hates hearing her every day...he's saying that he *doesn't* listen to her because she's a hypocritical idiot.
Changing morals is why we still need locks on banks.
Yes...and...?
And not everyone is aware that they do make those situational
judgements, Sarah, or that their beliefs change over time.
Um, I know that.
Laura's God says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Not my God. My gods make no such prohibitions about judging others. Quite the opposite. My gods tell me not to affiliate with those who lack honor. I have moral gray areas, and I've never robbed a bank.
But it's a stepping-stone drug that invariably leads to harder drugs,
like alcohol and heroin ... whoops, sorry, wrong right-wing argument.
re 20: I guess I believe that eveyone has their own set of morals. For me, mine are very black and white but they're always changing. They also very seldom are congruous with any nation's policy on any issue. This is not to say that I don't agree with most policy, just that it isn't exactly what I think, either too liberal or too convervative. Not that I'm middle of the road, but that I'm too extreme one way or the other on everything. (you should probably just ignore this comment, I've had WAY too much caffine for my own good. :-) :-p
(Black and white but always changing sounds suspiciously like "grey area" to me. I think what you'd call "the set of things I could concievably change my mind about" is what omni would call the gray area). Wow, both spellings in one paragraph.
I noticed that too. =)
I can't imagine a world in which there was only right and wrong with no gradations. Life just isn't that simple. There are some things that are Right and some things that are Wrong -- but it seems to me that most things fall into the right under some circumstance and wrong under others, and sometimes the very same act can be both right and wrong and we have to choose the lesser of two wrongs. Then again, my Gods demand personal responsibility and havenm't given b=me a book with paint by numbers moriality as a guide. It's a pain sometimes, but it's worth it.
Actually, here's what I feel: Given any simple dichotomy of values, as much as moral complexes can be reduced to atomic principles, there is an objective "Right" and "Wrong" within the dichotomy. However, since Real World choices are comprised of polyatomic principles, and involve more than two choices, the morality of one action over another in the same context appears to fall into a gray area, and the resolution of a moral dilemma will differ from individual based on the weights they assign to each simple atomic value contained within the polyatomic complex. In the famous example of the father who steals medicine from the rich pharmaceutical company to say his child's life, the two most obvious atomic values are: -- It's wrong to take what doesn't belong to you -- It's wrong to let children suffer when a solution is present Whether the ultimate conclusion is that the father is moral or not in stealing the drugs is determined by which of the two simple (and in this context contradictory) values are "more important." So, no, I don't think there are "gray areas" in morality from the standpoint that any moral position is defensible. I think the apparition of "gray areas" is the result of the fact that ethical systems are based on atomic primciples, while real world situations are based on polyatomic choices.
There's no moral absolutism there - that's a heirarchy of values. In
one common case, the desire not to break one's values is greater than the
desire to see a child not suffer, and in the other case it's the reverse.
Excellent points.
I have way too much of the rapscallion in me to ever let a big
corporation's profits and integrity stand in the way of a suffering child,
personally.
thmoral absolutism is in the form of "its always wrong to steal." The relativism is manifested by allowing a moral abrogation in order to maintain other morals.
(In other words, the sum of the two means acknowledging that there are situations in which there is no right thing to do?)
This response has been erased.
Whoops. :)
You don't have to have an absolute moral value in order to hold "thou
shalt not steal" over "thou shalt not allow a child to suffer" - you just have
to either value "thou shalt not steal" more highly, or view active moral codes
to be significantly different than pasive ones, that is to say, that it's
more wrong to *commit* an act than to allow an act to be comitted.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss