Vermont and Same Sex Marriage - Rights Are Not Enough

The Vermont Capitol, site of the next attempt to neuter marriage and redefine it for the convenience of gay activists.

Vermont was the first state in the US to pass a same-sex civil union law. Under pressure from the Vermont State Supreme Court, the legislature passed the law in 2000. The Vermont Secretary of State's website states the purpose of the law:

Parties to a civil union are given all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.

This arrangement satisfied the courts and same sex couples were appeased with the extension of rights. The news at the time insisted that civil unions didn't attack marriage, that same sex couples only wanted the extension of marriage benefits:

“All of the horrible things that opponents say will happen are not going to happen,” adds David Smith, a spokesman for The Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights group in America. “Hopefully, by example, many parts of the country and many people will become more comfortable with the idea.” (ABC News)

Another news story had this to say about civil unions:

''Same-sex couples will be forming civil unions and the state's not going to fall apart,'' said Beth Robinson, a lead lawyer in the case that prompted the civil unions law. ''It's just going to be better, and that's going to be the most helpful part of this dialogue. Because the longer we go with the law in effect, the more incredible the claims of our opponents will be exposed as being.'' (New York Times) (My thanks to U.S. Political Scene for pointing out these quotes.)

What were these incredible claims? What were those "horrible" things that opponents said would happen? Marriage advocates said then what they are saying now - gay activists are trying to destroy the institution of marriage. Bishop Kenneth A. Angell said this:

“I am saddened by yet another cultural weakening of God’s matrimonial plan for man and woman,” Angell says in a written statement released this week. “I will be praying this weekend for all concerned." (ABC News)

When Vermont passed civil union legislation, everyone took same sex marriage advocates at their word, that the question was one of extending civil rights. Gays accepted the Vermont civil unions on these grounds.

At least for awhile.

With the gay activists, apparently, the same rights aren't enough. Once again, the institution of marriage is at stake:

Many gay men and lesbians and supporters of same-sex marriage — in Vermont and across the country — say civil unions have proved to be inadequate. They want a law that would confer more rights, protections and better benefits, including access to health care....

Opponents wear stickers that say, “Marriage: A mother and father for every child,” while supporters’ stickers say, “From legal rights to equal rights.” (New York Times)

Marriage supporters ("opponents" in mediaspeak) want to protect marriage and now gay activists ("supporters" in mediaspeak) want "equal rights" by neutering marriage.

Vermont took gay activists at their word in 2000. Now in 2009, gay activists have decided that what they really wanted all along was to take the institution of marriage and redefine it according to their own particular sexual preference. That, they say, will be what they really want.

At least for awhile.