BUT FIRST, THIS NOTE: In what may be an excess of courtesy (those who are criticized should be given more than ample time to defend themselves) the investigative report originally scheduled for today (the one mentioned in Tuesday’s brief post) will be delayed until tomorrow.

Instead, we will do something unusual today. We will pay the debaters in Vermont’s current squabble over same sex marriage the (perhaps unwanted) honor of taking them seriously.

As this is being written, the debate still rages at the public hearing in Montpelier. No matter, enough has been said on both sides to cast the same skeptical eye on both sides, assessing not their political clout, but their knowledge and rationality, or lack thereof, taking both sides equally seriously.

Uhhhh, except where that’s impossible, such as in Aaron Melville’s Burlington Free Press column asserting that “marriage consists of one slice of bread covered in peanut butter (man) and [one] slice covered in jelly (woman).”

David playing the Harp for Saul, by Rembrandt

In vain, you seek for a sign that this is parody. In mercy, you consider ignoring it. But Melville did have it published, and he is a political quasi-official (chairman of Vermont Young Republicans).

Welcome to the NFL, kid. Next time think before you write.

On firmer ground in opposition to same sex marriage was The Most Rev. Salvatore R. Matano, the Bishop of Burlington, who said the proposed law would “alter the definition of marriage as the…legal union of one man and one woman.”

That’s indisputable because it’s true. Indisputable because it is a statement of faith, rather than an assertion of fact, is Bishop Matano’s contention that marriage is “not a purely human institution,” because “the love of a husband and wife reflects the love between the church and Christ.”

One does not argue that. One either believes it or not. Either way, it is what a Bishop is going to say.

Unfortunately, when he descended to the secular, Bishop Matano was less impressive. He worried that if the law passed religious people would “be penalized for adhering to our beliefs and creeds,” though nothing in the bill justifies such concern. Then he worried that because there are aggressive atheists abroad in the land, the practice of religion might soon be considered “odious,” and Catholics will become “objects of hate.”

Reality to Bishop Matano: The Roman Catholic  Church is among the most august, powerful, honored institutions in…well, in the history of the world. It need not join today’s woe-is-us victimology shtick.

As if to demonstrate ecumenicism in the whining department, Scott Libby, the pastor of the Grace Brethren Church in Irasburg, charged that, “the further civil laws move away from God’s law, the closer Christians come to being persecuted by the government.”

By which standard Jews and Muslims could cry persecution because pork is legal at the supermarket.

Let no one assume, though, that only gay marriage opponents seemed muddled at times. True, they seemed more muddled, not because they are more foolish, but because they made more assertions. The basic message of the bill’s supporters is simply that it is right. They need no factual claim to back that up.

Technically, Tom Torti of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce didn’t make a factual claim. But he suggested one when he said, “Vermont is poised to reinforce its legacy and in doing so to set in place an environment and culture that will foster business growth and development,”

The suggestion, seconded by others, was that legalizing gay marriage would be good for Vermont’s economy. But there is neither evidence that it would have any impact either way, nor much reason to think that it would.

And not everything asserted by the opponents was wrong. When Pastor Ethan Kallberg of the Lamoille Valley Grace Brtheren Church in Morrisville said “homosexuality and by extension homosexual marriage is offensive to God,” and when the Rev. David Lisner of the Newport Baptist Church said the legislation “stands in direct violation of scripture,” they had a point. In Chapter 18, Verse 22, the Book of Leviticus prescribes death for any man who “lie(s) with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination” (King James translation).

In the spirit of taking everyone seriously, let’s take these objectors seriously on their own terms. Accepting homosexuality may not be “in direct violation of scripture,” but only of Leviticus.

Later on, the Bible repeats several times that God kept the House of David on the throne of Judah, because “David had done what was pleasing to the Lord and never turned throughout his life from all that He had commanded him, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” (Masoretic translation)

A sin inspired by rampant heterosexual lust.

A creative enough reader can figure out a way to interpret I Samuel to mean something other than that David and Jonathan, the son of Saul, were teenage lovers. But that’s the plain meaning of the text. It was certainly what Saul thought when he claimed Jonathan had chosen David “to your own shame and the shame of your mother’s nakedness.”

That’s Bible talk for mifkie-pifkie in the bushes.

OK, Saul was the Richard Nixon of Israel’s First Commonwealth – brilliant but bonkers. But if David and Jonathan were lovers, and that was not a sin, then…well, the whole thing becomes substantially more ambiguous, does it not?

Besides, don’t these clergymen realize that no one – no one! -in America has to do anything just because the Bible says so?  Even most of the Ten Commandments can be violated without consequences here on earth. Any one of us is allowed to dishonor our parents, ignore the Sabbath, or covet our neighbor’s ox. In fact, you’d best not do some things the Bible commands, such as stoning to death your stubborn and rebellious son in obedience to Deuteronomy 21:18.

In short, stating that a law should pass or fail because the Bible does or does not approve is saying nothing. Law and government are secular, as should be the debates surrounding them.

Descending to the secular, then, let’s consider a not-so-absurd anti-gay marriage suggestion by writer John McClaughry and Sen. Kevin Mullin, a Rutland Republican, that the question be put to the entire electorate in a non-binding referendum.

A very democratic suggestion that can not be dismissed even while observing the irony of two conservatives suggesting government by plebiscite. Alexander Hamilton would not be amused.

From their own perspective, though, there are two problems. One is that, from the polling available, the electorate would probably vote yes. The other is: be careful about getting what you want. Suppose, say, that anti-hunting forces wanted to put a hunting ban proposal to the entire electorate. They’d probably lose, now. But five years from now?  And what about a referendum on outlawing trapping?  It would win in a walk. Especially for a conservative, representative democracy is not a bad deal. If the Legislature approves gay marriage and the people don’t like it, they can elect new legislators who will repeal the law.

Sadly, some of the rest of McClaughry’s column in the Free Press are less well-grounded, starting with the claim that  ”prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples seeking marriage cannot be limited to just those couples. If two men or two women can marry, why not two of each as a foursome? Or a Muslim taking four wives?

But nothing stops the members of any democratic society from legalizing any or all of those arrangements now. They are not on the political radar not because gay marriage is illegal. They are not on the political radar because no constituency supports them.

Finally, let’s return to Bishop Matano, who helpfully noted that marriage is not now simply a union between one man and one woman. He pointed out that it is between a man and a woman who love one another. That’s the real definition of marriage: an officially recognized union between a man and a woman who love one another and wish to live together and comprise a family, with or without children.

As Bishop Matano said, passing the gay marriage bill would “alter the definition.” What he did not say was…what else is new? The definition has been altered before, and indeed is not universal now. As McClaughry acknowledged, Moslem men may have four wives, which is legal in much of the world.

This love business isn’t universal either. Arranged marriages happen all over, even in the United States. They used to be the norm. Centuries ago, kings married not for love but for territory. Then they and their consorts each took lovers, not infrequently of the same sex. Henry II didn’t marry Catherine of Aragon for love. He married her for the Aragon. If the movie A Lion in Winter is historically accurate, they developed passionate relationship which ranged between love and hate. But that was incidental.

Passage of this legislation would, as the bishop said, alter the definition to mean an officially recognized relationship between any two people who love one another and wish to live together and comprise a family.

The question then occurs: Just what is so terrible about that?

The biggest Vermont political surprise of last week wasn’t the announcement by legislative leaders that they were going to put the gay marriage bill on the agenda, and probably pass it within weeks.

That was the second biggest surprise.

The biggest surprise was the reaction. Or, more accurately, the lack of reaction. Unlike 2000, when the Civil Union debate inspired a passionate and (mostly) spontaneous grass-roots uprising in opposition, the declaration from Speaker Shap Smith and Senator Peter Shumlin produced the sound of silence. Where had all the opponents gone?

This week, the temptation is to say that they’re in the governor’s office. Let’s resist it. Gov. Jim Douglas did tell the editorial board of the Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus Tuesday that he did not support the bill, that “the civil union law we have now is sufficient,” and that he did not ” see the need to have … a divisive debate about this topic.”

What he did not say is whether he would veto the bill if it passes.

And passage is likely, even according to the Rev. Craig Benson, who will demonstrate next week that there really are opponents of gay marriage in Vermont. Benson, the head of Take it to the People, said the real question was whether there will be “enough  (no votes) in either the House or the Senate so that a veto by the Governor can be sustained.”

To inspire those no votes, Benson said,  opponents would take advantage of one or more of the “several opportunities for folks to show up in Montpelier next week,” starting with the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the bill (H-178)  Monday afternoon. Benson is on the schedule, as is Beth Robinson, the head of  Vermont Freedom to Marry.

“The test is really in that first week to see if the grass roots rise up, or if some in the Legislature actually listen to the opposition testimony, where they might find reasonable doubt about the question, and decide it should be thought through some more.” Benson said.

But gay marriage opponents face a disadvantage in their efforts to orchestrate a popular uprising: Most of the populace seems to support the bill.

Such at least is the conclusion of the only recent polling on the subject. A January survey by Macro International, a reputable polling firm, found that 58 percent of Vermonters (a 400-person sample) said they supported or were “leaning toward support” of legal marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Thirty-nine percent opposed or were “leaning against.”

As Benson pointed out, there is a difference between supporting an idea in the abstract and supporting a particular bill before the Legislature. The poll was taken before the bill was introduced and did not ask about it. It is also possible that this is one of those issues on which some people are reluctant to express an opinion that they know is regarded as unenlightened in some circles.

But the pro-marriage majority has held steady in Vermont polls for four years, and unless Benson and his allies can really flood the Statehouse with opponents next week, there seems to be little reason for a lawmaker to think there’s a big political risk in voting for the bill. There may be a bigger one in voting against it.

Unless that opposition testimony Benson talked about can instill some “reasonable doubt” in that lawmaker’s mind about the merits of the case.

Benson presented four arguments:

–The proposed law threatens religious freedom by threatening to “follow the Canadian example (in which) there would be certain sections of the Bible a priest or minister can’t read in public (without the risk of facing) hate speech charges.”

–If the law is passed, society would “lose all legal rationale for limiting the size of families,” which would open the door to “polygamy and group marriage.”

–The new law would create “big questions about changes of language in family and child law practice.”

–Social science research indicates that children are best raised by a mother and a father.

But the bill itself includes a provision allowing “clergy the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage,” and U.S. laws and legal traditions are quite different from Canada’s when it comes to free speech issues.

The bill also specifies that all “gender-specific terms” in family and child law “shall be construed to be gender neutral for all purposes throughout the law,” which would seem to take care of the language problem.

Furthermore, the bill defines marriage as a “legally recognized union of two people,” not three or four or more. Besides, if advocates of polygamy or group marriage want to agitate for legal acceptance, they can do so now. They don’t, because there are so few of them. There is no noticeable group marriage constituency.

Benson is right that the proposed law – like any landmark legislation – could have “unknowable” consequences. Among them may be the impact on children, though there is scant evidence that children raised by same-sex couples do worse financially, socially, or psychologically than other children. Either way, it seems unlikely that many legislators are going to be swayed by the opposition arguments.

That means the opponents are going to have to try to revive fury that inspired the “Take Back Vermont” movement backlash against Civil Unions in 2000. Right now, that fury is nowhere to be seen. It could re-emerge next week; as Benson said, gay rights is a “polarizing” issue.

But as Beth Robinson pointed out, there is passion on the other side of the issue, too.

“Passions run high on this issue in both directions,” she said. “.When people talk about the divisiveness of moving forward, they fail to recognize the divisiveness of not moving forward. Action is going to bring some people out of woodwork, but inaction also going to bring some people out of woodwork. Saying to the gay and lesbian community that you’re not fully equal is untenable.”

The man in the middle, of course, will be the governor. The conventional wisdom in Montpelier is that even if he does not sign the bill, he will not veto it, allowing it to become law without his signature.

But the pressure on him is likely to be intense. That 40 percent or so who oppose gay marriage are part of his base. No politician can afford to ignore his base. He has to show them at least that he is sensitive to their point of view.

Maybe he just did that at the Montpelier editorial board, and maybe that will suffice. After all, Jim Douglas is not likely to hold any higher office; neither Vermont senator is politically vulnerable and even if a Republican becomes president in 2012, he is likely to find Douglas insufficiently right-wing for a cabinet post.

That means that if Douglas is remembered at all beyond Vermont’s borders, it could be for whether he tries to stop Vermont from legalizing same-sex marriage. The odds are that he would find that a displeasing prospect.