Love and Marriage, II
Whatever else one may say about the gay marriage issue in Vermont this year, it certainly has not been under-discussed. On the front pages and in the opening minutes of the broadcast news programs, the debate over the love that once could not speak its name has refused to shut up.
So you’d think – and no doubt many would hope – that everything that can be said about the situation has been said.
But maybe not. As the process nears its end, the latest developments have revealed a few interesting tidbits, and not just about the same-sex marriage issue.
The first and most obvious (though rarely remarked upon, which is why it is being remarked upon here) is how thoroughly the “pro” side of this debate has become the position of The Establishment.
Everybody knows what The Establishment is, though officially it does not exist. It’s the folks who really run the joint – the leading businesspeople; the bankers, lawyers, and realtors who serve on the United Way boards and all those other do-good (but make no waves) committees; the president, provost, top deans and senior faculty (not including the ones who make waves) at the nearest college or university; the editor and publisher of the newspaper.
Overwhelmingly, if not quite unanimously, The Establishment’s Vermont chapter now favors gay marriage.
An extraordinary development, when you think about it. Here is a cause that only a decade or so ago was embraced by only a fringe of the fringe. Remember, the Legislature passed civil unions in 2000, probably against the wishes of most Vermonters, only because it was effectively under court order to do so. Back then, even most politicians who supported civil unions were careful to point out that they opposed same-sex marriage.
Now the pro-gay marriage stance seems to be the default position in corporate boardrooms and country club locker rooms.
Otherwise it’s unlikely that Tom Torti , president of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, would have endorsed the bill so enthusiastically before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Chamber presidents tend to talk to their members, who are actually their bosses, and to be careful not to outrage them
And note how Torti said that by adopting gay marriage ”Vermont is poised to reinforce its legacy.” Being in favor of the bill, he was saying, was being a traditional Vermonter, a member of the state’s establishment rather than a rebel.
Clearly, not everyone will agree with that. But it was noteworthy that no business leader challenged Torti. Mike Belya, the legislative director of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, told the Burlington free Press that his organization would take no position on the gay marriage bill because it wasn’t “a business issue.”
In this case, though, “no position” is the functional equivalent of “it doesn’t bother us.”
At least not enough of “us” to make big deal over it.
Then, of course, there was the Free Press itself, reversing its 1999 position that marriage was not a right and that some discrimination was acceptable. “The years since then have proven our position to be unfounded,” last Wednesday’s editorial said, adding that some of its reasoning was “pure nonsense.”
Rarely do newspapers talk that way about themselves, especially newspapers known for…well, shall we charitably say for not being on the cutting edge. The Free Press’s motto could be “Taking Chances ‘R’ Not Us.” There is reason to presume that the top honchos there knew that what they were doing was good public relations and good business. The Free Press editor and publisher are not fools.
(More debatable is whether they are journalists. By reliable report , both of them attended one of Gov, Jim Douglas’s January speeches to the Legislature, sat in the press section, and…..Arggghhh! applauded. Journalists do not do that. “No Cheering In The Press Box.” If you want to applaud, go sit with the hacks. They’ll make room for you).
Erasing any doubts that the pro-gay marriage side has become dominant was a thoughtful article explaining the conservative case for gay marriage by Emerson Lynn, the editor and publisher of the St.Albans Messenger, who wrote:
“Marriage connotes commitment. The more couples that seek that commitment, the more stable we are as a society. The greater the barriers to that commitment, the less stable we are. That has been conservative dogma for eons.”
The other interesting new wrinkle has been noticed, but insufficiently documented. This year’s marriage bill seems to be arousing far less passion than did the civil unions legislation in 2000. Perhaps that’s because the actual impact of the civil unions law on the lives of most Vermonters was effectively nil
“On July 1 of that year the sun rose,” Torti noted in his testimony, ”people went off to work, businesses continued to locate here, tourism continued to flourish and Vermont reinforced its legacy as a state founded on individual rights and tolerance. The doomsday scenarios that were pronounced failed to materialize.”
Those doomsday scenarios mostly had to do with the possible effect of Civil unions on “traditional marriage.” Just what those effects were supposed to be was never spelled out, but we now know what they were: also nil.
Since civil unions became law, Vermont’s divorce rate has gone down, from 4.1 (per thousands of people) in 2000 to 3.6 in 2007.
Because of civil unions? No, of course not. Divorce rates have gone down nationwide, too, but Vermont’s rate of decrease has kept pace, and the state’s divorce rate remains below the national average.
(Though not because of civil unions perhaps because of the state’s disproportionate secularism. This is the state, according to several studies, whose citizens are least likely to be regular religious worshipers. Divorce rates, according to other studies, are highest among Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians, whose teenage children are also more likely to be sexually active and get pregnant. Perhaps a reason Vermont has a low teen-age pregnancy rate).
What about the marriage rate? That’s gone down, too, from 10.3 in 2000 to 8.6 in 2007. But not because of civil unions. The marriage rate, too, has declined nationwide, and in many states the decline has been greater than in Vermont. In short, civil unions have made no discernible difference to marriage in Vermont, suggesting (though by no means proving) that gay marriage won’t, either.
Of course all this might be wrong. A huge uprising against same-sex marriage might be festering beneath the surface, to emerge after the bill becomes law (if it does) and sweeping supporters out of the Legislature as the “Take Back Vermont” movement did in 2000.
But back then, the bill passed just a few months before the election. This time there would be 19 months after passage before the lawmakers have to face the electorate again. Ample time for other issues to enrage other constituencies.
Tags: gay marriage
