|
On Monday, December 20, 1999, the Vermont
Supreme Court rendered its decision in a case
brought before it over a year previously. It was a
controversial case where the Court was being urged
to establish that gay and lesbian couples had the
right to marry. The opinion issued by the Court,
however, was both a win and a loss for the
proponents of gay marriage. While recognizing that
the issue was secular rather than religious and
that denying marriage to gays violated the Common
Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution, the
Court ruled that the final disposition of the
matter should rest with the state legislature. In a
surprising move, the Court had moved the
controversy from the judicial realm to the
political arena. As a result a new and even more
vigorous conflict would ensue.
The narrative that unfolds has all the elements
of a good drama: there is joy and sadness, there
are high points and lowpoints, there are wins and
losses, there are heroes, victims, and the
occasional cad, whose behavior at times borders on
the incomprehensible. The reader will first meet
Beth Robinson, the determined attorney who argued
the case before the Supreme Court, and then hear
the personal stories of the plaintiffs who were
courageous enough to come forward and attach their
names to the legal action. The reader will also
meet many members of the Vermont legislature, those
that supported the move toward recognition of
same-sex unions and those that opposed it. Their
individual stories add a special and telling
ingredient to the narrative as a whole. And, in
what must be one of the most stirring parts of the
book, the author lets the citizens of Vermont speak
for themselves, those in favor of the change and
those against it.
In my personal opinion, one of the highlights of
the book occurs in Chapter Nine. It is really
unrelated to the historical events which unfolded
during the time the Vermont legislature was dealing
with the gay marriage issue, but I think it is an
enlightening sidebar to this controversial matter.
Sharon Underwood, mother of a gay son, wrote an
impassioned opinion piece which appeared in a local
newspaper and expressed her anger, as Moats says,
"about the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of
those who had adopted a moral tone to condemn and
attack their neighbors." In her op-ed, Ms.
Underwood briefly relates some of the horrific
things which happened to her son beginning at the
age of six, simply because he was perceived to be
"different." Her two-page story alone is worth the
price of the book.
Moats is clearly aware of one of the most
problematic aspects of the gay marriage issue. He
points out early on that "In confronting the issue
of gay marriage, the nation confronts a paradox of
liberal democracy. The dignity of the individual
was a moral value that rested on religious and
philosophical traditions prevailing in
eighteenth-century Britain and its colonies. Yet
liberal democracy lifts that value into the secular
realm, where it serves as the premise for equality
and justice before the law."
This is an important point. Those who oppose any
change in the marriage laws because of the
Judeo-Christian tradition which they claim forms
the foundation of our society fail to see that,
while it is true that many of our moral beliefs are
founded on Christian principles, our political
framework and the theories underlying it are not.
The political foundation of our society is firmly
set on ideas derived from the secular, "pagan"
cultures of ancient Greece and Rome. Our Republic
must in the end be secular and inclusive, and our
representative democracy must be fair and just to
all citizens. And this may mean a recognition of
the fundamental right to choose a marriage partner
without interference from the state.
Is there anything missing in Moats' telling of
the events he relates? I can think of at least two
things I wished he would have explained more in
detail but, in fairness to him, he may have
considered them irrelevant to the issue at hand or
he may have been unable to pursue them. One, I
would have liked more information about the
rationale of the Catholic legislators who, in
apparent defiance of their bishop's directive,
supported legalization of gay marriage. Secondly, I
would have liked to know why Neil Randall, a
Libertarian legislator, would join with Nancy
Sheltra, leader of the House conservatives, to
derail a domestic partnership bill and push for a
constitutional amendment forbidding both gay
marriage and domestic partnership. Libertarians are
well-known for generally opposing state
intervention in strictly personal matters. But, as
any student of politics knows, politics makes for
strange bedfellows.
In conclusion, this book is definitely not a
one-sided partisan report on gay marriage. Although
the author is clearly sympathetic to the
legalization of gay marriage, he is eminently fair
in describing both sides of the issue and in his
evaluation of the characters on both sides of the
matter. I would recommend his book to all those
interested in a fair and balanced discussion of
same-sex unions, regardless of the side one
currently takes on this very divisive issue, which
is sure to claim the attention of the public for
some time to come.
You can order this book by clicking on the
link below.
Civil
Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage, by David
Moats
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|