Gay marriage effort shifts back to New England
03.27.2009 3:53pm EDT
(Montpelier, Vt.) Vermont was the first state to outlaw slavery. Neighboring New Hampshire declared its independence from England before any other colony. Maine led the way with Prohibition.
These days, Yankee activism has another cause – gay rights.Two states in New England already allow same-sex marriage, and lawmakers in three more are considering it, although passage is far from certain.
To some, the push is emblematic of a live-and-let-live ethic and burnished by gradual acceptance of gay relationships after Vermont’s groundbreaking civil unions law took effect in 2000. Others see it as a targeted effort by a vocal minority that has turned to the Northeast because its message can’t get traction elsewhere.
Only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed it before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows civil unions, which offer many of the same rights that come with marriage.
New Jersey, New Hampshire and Oregon also offer civil unions or domestic partnerships. New York and New Jersey are weighing same-sex marriage legislation, and the Iowa Supreme Court has heard arguments on a marriage equality suit.
But for now, the focus on legal recognition of gay relationships has returned to northern New England.
“There is not an easy way to get the issue on the ballot and before the voters so that it can be decided directly by the people,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage and is underwriting a radio campaign against it.
“Therefore, it is more a creature of special interest politics and legislative dealmaking. These are small states which can be influenced by fairly large amounts of outside money coming in. And it’s very hard for regular people to feel that they can have a voice on this issue in these states.”
The voices – on both sides – are growing louder:
- New Hampshire, which enacted a civil unions law last year, moved a step closer to legalizing gay marriage Thursday when the state House of Representatives voted in favor. The state Senate still must vote, though, and the governor – who signed a civil unions bills last year – opposes it.
- The Vermont Senate has approval a similar measure, but the House has yet to vote. Gov. Jim Douglas vowed Wednesday to veto the bill if it reaches him, spurring a protest that drew about 300 people to the Statehouse on Friday. Protesters say they’ll push to get enough votes in the Legislature for a veto override.
- In Maine, a bill to legalize gay marriage has nearly 60 co-sponsors in the Legislature, but Gov. John Baldacci opposes it.
Beth Robinson, who leads the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, says the close proximity of the New England states has allowed people to see for themselves that civil unions work and gay marriage should be allowed to. Massachusetts got same-sex marriage in 2004.
“It’s a lot harder for someone who lives near Massachusetts to say that the sky’s going to fall if we share the same sky. Someone halfway across the country might not see that,” Robinson said.
Another supporter is Stan Baker, 64, of Shelburne, Vt., whose marriage equality lawsuit led to Vermont’s first-in-the-nation civil unions law nine years ago.
“Many of our states have really championed civil rights, social justice and freedom issues and understand that when one person’s rights are denied, it affects all of us,” Baker said.
New Hampshire state Rep. Ed Butler, a 59-year-old Democrat who obtained a civil union last year with his partner of 30 years, said the bill there has big hurdles ahead. But many people want it, he said.
“At least in New Hampshire, there’s a strong libertarian streak – respect of individual rights and respect for your neighbor. If you are a good and contributing member of your community, then people see no reason to deny you what seems reasonable,” Butler said.
Opponents contend that the measures don’t have popular support, saying that gay rights measures are nearly always defeated at the polls. Amendments to ban gay marriage were approved in November in Arizona and Florida. Now, 30 states have gay marriage bans in their constitutions.
Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Family Policy Council, which opposes same-sex marriage, said lawmakers out of touch with real people are the ones pushing same-sex marriage.
“I think it’s because the politicians up here have become more left-leaning. I have experienced a significant disconnect between the public in Maine and the politicians on the issue of gay rights,” Heath said.





As my grandmother would say, Maggie Gallagher is a nasty piece of work.
I am from CA… and our legislature passed gay marriage TWICE!!! ONLY TO SEE OUR governor….. vetoe it… now these 3 governors are threatening the same thing… whats up with governors? Freaking straight men trying to say who, how and what…. so over straight men…. nothing of love or acceptance ever comes from them…. and how will gay marriage ruin marriage….. straight people succeeded with that before the times of Jesus… and now the lovelt straight man in Austria who imprisoned his very own daughter for 26 years, raped her and had 7 kids with her and then threw the dead fetuses in the furnace…so, world..tell me here how this man didnt ruin the sanctity and purity of the filth known as traditional straight marriage???
Considering that the Stonewall incident was the catalyst for Gay activism in New York and the rest of the country, one wonders what is taking this state so long to join with it’s east coast allies, Conn. and Mass., to pass a gay marriage ordinance.
[screw] gay people
So Jake – are you saying you’re a top?
“[screw] gay people”
Yah, I do all the time! Gay MALES preferably! LOL!
It may seem simple to many, BUT… if I am expected to have discounted rights, I absolutely expect a discounted tax rate
Why are churches tax-exempt? At least in theory, because they are charitable organizations, not because they are religious ones. I think that should be the consistent standard. If a church uses, let’s say, forty% of its revenue, after salaries, for charitable purposes with secular value, then I am fine with a tax exemption. This means health care, education, and social services, not preaching their particular religious doctrine or making converts. Churches are free to do this, of course, but I see no reason the government or my tax money should subsidize it.
This isn’t just about conservative churches either. The liberal, pro-gay Unitarian church I belong to now could meet this standard, I think. However, the liberal, very pro-gay Episcopal church I used to belong to could not have done.
R&R I agree, tax all cults that meddle in politics and legislation. Why in a society that is supposed to have separation of church and state are they taz-exempt? Why should they have special treatment and why should they be above the law in that respect? Most of these cults who vote for discrimination are already in violation of their tax-exempt status. Why should our tax dollars support their privileges, the very cults that lobby and vote for discrimination against LGBT people? Tax the bastards to the hilt.
Since when does the electorate get to vote on civil rights issues anyway? To me, marriage is civil right and civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. If the bigots insist on getting marriage equality on state ballots, then we’re allowing mob rule to take precedence in policy making, a dangerous road to go down. We’ve already witnessed that in California, a classic example of the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Tax, tax, tax the f—–s with impunity I say.
You have to appreciate the irony of Maggie Gallagher’s comment ‘These are small states which can be influenced by fairly large amounts of outside money coming in.’
I didn’t see her complain about the large amounts of outside money that influenced the the very large state of California to vote against marriage equality.
She is a total hypocrite. She manages to get her voice heard everywhere as an ‘expert’ on ‘traditional family values’ even though she’s been divorced and was a single parent. People in glass houses and all that.
I agree with others that have stated in the past and also have tried to change my words as well. I have found it has helped me already change a few minds in my “circle” of associates.
Instead of saying “Gay” Marriage or Homosexual Marriage, LET’S call it
MARRIAGE EQUALITY~
Also, as I have reassured some associates in my Marriage Equality Arguments is this: If your Church Does NOT want to Marry 2 men or 2 women, then so be it, but “Your” religion is NOT the only religion in this country and some actually do recognize and perform Equal Marriages!
Personally, I don’t want to get married in the house of Bigots or in a place where I’m not wanted and excepted anyways! But these TAX EXEMPT relgious ORGANIZATIONS need to realize, Everything is GIVE and TAKE!
Therefore, maybe we need to TAKE their Tax Exempt status away!