Note: This website contains archives of Vermotn Freedom to Marry's journey to marriage equality in Vermont. Action items and volunteer opportunities may be from the past, left up as resources for other states working toward marriage equality.
Support our work to assist other states and the national effort
to gain civil marriage rights and erase discrimination for same-sex couples.
Recent Posts
Welcome to the New VFM Task Force archive!
This site is dedicated to preserving archival information: video, posts from the legislative session, lists of our business, clergy, and lawyer supporters, and lots of great stuff.
Visit Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force for current posts.
08/22/2011
11/14/2010
11/10/2010
Bereaved Spouse Challenges "Defense Of Marriage Act" As Unconstitutional
Another lawsuit will be filed challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for discriminatorily burdening a widowed spouse in a legal same-sex marriage. We're sharing this love story from the American Civil Liberties Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surviving Spouse Of Same-Sex Couple Challenges Federal Government's Failure To Recognize Their Marriage
NEW YORK – Edith "Edie" Windsor, who shared her life with her late spouse, Thea Spyer, for 44 years, will file a lawsuit against the federal government tomorrow for refusing to recognize their marriage. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), a federal statute that defines marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Windsor and Spyer were married in Canada in 2007, and were considered married by their home state of New York.
Spyer died in 2009. Due to DOMA's discriminatory policies, Windsor was not able to claim the estate tax marital deduction that is available when the surviving spouse is of the opposite sex. In her lawsuit, Windsor is seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and to obtain a refund of the federal estate tax that she was forced to pay following Spyer's death. The lawsuit will be filed with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and the New York Civil Liberties Union.
"After Thea died, the fact that the federal government refused to recognize our marriage was devastating," said Windsor. "In the midst of my grief at the loss of the love of my life, I had to deal with my own government saying that we weren't a family."
Continue reading "Bereaved Spouse Challenges "Defense Of Marriage Act" As Unconstitutional" »
11/09/2010
GLAD opens 2nd front in the war on DOMA
We're proud and excited to share this message from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders regarding the DOMA challenge the organization has just filed on behalf of a group of plaintiffs, including a couple from Vermont. We appreciate GLAD's ongoing hard work for LGBT New-Englanders and Americans generally.
_________________________________________
This morning, on behalf of a widower and five couples from Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont, we filed Pedersen et al v. Office of Personnel Management, our second major lawsuit challenging the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA).
Click here to watch a short video of Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto explaining GLAD's new challenge to DOMA.
Because of DOMA, Joanne Pedersen, a Department of Naval Intelligence retiree, can't put her wife Ann Meitzen on her health insurance plan. Jerry Passaro is cut off from his late husband Tom's pension. Lynda DeForge can't get Family Medical Leave to help care for her wife, Raquel Ardin, who was injured during her military service. We must get DOMA off the books before it does even more harm.
Why a second challenge to DOMA? Because we know:
Continue reading "GLAD opens 2nd front in the war on DOMA" »
11/04/2010
10/18/2010
Oct. 27: Vigil to support the spirit of bullied youth
Please attend a vigil at the fountain near the Middlebury Green on Wednesday, October 27th, 5:30 to 6:30 PM.
Hospice will provide candles. Students and faculty from Mount Abraham Union High School, Middlebury Union High School, and Vergennes Union High School will attend. Please join them ~ bring friends and family.
10/01/2010
Join Monday's Candellight Vigil
Outright Vermont, LGBTQA Center at UVM, UVM’s Free2B, and other UVM groups are co-hosting a candlelight vigil on Monday, October 4th at 8 pm to honor the lives and mourn the loss of 5 youths that have committed suicide in the past three weeks.
Asher Brown, age 13, from Texas; Billy Lucas, age 15, from Indiana; Seth Walsh, age 13, from California; and Tyler Clementi, age 18, from New Jersey all experienced bullying and harassment because they were either gay or perceived to be gay. Raymond Chase, age 19, an openly gay college student from New York, also committed suicide in the past three weeks. We will also honor the lives of other youth lost to suicide that didn’t make the national news.
Rachel Koh, a UVM student, states, “At this time I would invite us all to be together to show support for our communities: the UVM community, the Burlington community, the LGBTQA community, the nation, whatever communities you identify with, because suicide affects all of us. Let’s join together in remembrance and solidarity.”
Jan Donley, author of the recently published young adult novel The Side Door will participate in a discussion with youth before the vigil. The Side Door is about a 15-year-old high school student who comes out as a lesbian and forces her community to deal with issues of sexual orientation, gender expression, and youth suicide.
This event will mark the start of Suicide Prevention Week. Join us at UVM’s Allen House, 461 Main Street in Burlington, on Monday, October 4, at 6 pm for the discussion with Jan Donley and at 7:30 pm for the candlelight vigil. We will walk from Allen House to the Green, where the vigil will start at 8 pm. Youth needing transportation should contact Outright Vermont at (802) 865-9677 or email info@outrightvt.org.
08/09/2010
Read Beth Robinson's OpEd in the Rutland Herald
Reprinted from The Rutland Herald's website with permission.
Victories on the road to equal rights
By BETH ROBINSON - Published: August 8, 2010
After more than a decade of action in state courts and legislatures — with Vermont on the front lines throughout — the freedom-to-marry struggle has expanded into a new arena: federal, rather than state courts. So far, so good.
A month ago, a federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a landmark decision relating to the constitutionality of the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies validly married same-sex couples federal legal protections such as Social Security survivor benefits and the ability to file taxes jointly. The question in that case, Gill vs. Office of Personnel Management, is not whether same-sex couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry; the individuals and couples in that case were all legally married. The question in Gill is whether the federal government can exclude a subset of married individuals — namely, those with partners of the same sex — from the extensive array of federal legal protections available to married people.
Judge Joseph Tauro — a Nixon appointee — concluded that it could not do so. Finding no relevant distinction between legally married individuals with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex, the court deduced that “it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.” The court reached a similar conclusion in a companion case initiated by the Massachusetts attorney general on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
This past week, after an extensive and high-profile trial, a federal district judge in California — a Reagan appointee — issued an expansive decision tackling the freedom-to-marry question directly. In the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, Judge Vaughn Walker concluded that California’s infamous Proposition 8, the successful citizens initiative that stripped same-sex couples of the right to marry, violates the U.S. Constitution. Evaluating in detail each of the rationales for Proposition 8 offered by its proponents, the court found no credible evidence to support the law. The absence of a legitimate basis for the law caused the court to infer that the real premise of Proposition 8 was and is that same-sex couples simply aren’t “as good as opposite-sex couples.” Such a belief, ruled the court, “is not a proper basis on which to legislate.”
These decisions give us cause to celebrate. More and more consistently, when judges — across the political spectrum — put those who oppose full legal rights for same-sex couples to their proof, they discover there’s no “there” there. On one side, we have real families living lives of integrity who are just seeking the same legal security that their neighbors enjoy. On the other, we have anxieties unsupported by actual evidence or reason. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow unfounded fears to defeat citizens’ basic rights.
But these cases aren’t over. All three decisions are subject to appeal.
Nor are they the be-all and end-all. We’ve learned here in Vermont that courts can play a critical catalytic role. They can and should step in to vindicate constitutional rights when our government violates them. That’s their job. But a court decision — even from the highest court in the land — is no substitute for the hard work of neighbor-to-neighbor engagement, public education, and consensus-building required in a successful civil rights movement. In fact, that sort of engagement is essential to creating an environment in which we can win in courts at every level.
Those of us who support the freedom to marry, and who oppose DOMA, would be well advised not to kick back and put all our eggs in the federal court basket. In fact, I hope that none of these cases reaches the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, I hope that Congress repeals DOMA and the voters of California repeal Proposition 8 before the court gets the chance to review these cases.
But if I don’t get my wish, and these demeaning laws stay on the books, harming countless Americans by denying the reality of their families, then I can only hope that judges up the appellate chain — however high these cases go — approach these cases as thoughtfully as Judges Tauro and Walker did. In the heady world of the federal courts, we’re off to a good start.
Beth Robinson is a lawyer with the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force. She argued the Baker case before the Vermont Supreme Court in 1998, which led to the adoption of Vermont’s civil unions law in 2000, and she was a leader in the campaign that led to the adoption of full marriage equality in 2009.
08/04/2010
What does today's Prop 8 ruling mean?
Click here to listen to Beth Robinson's Vermont Public Radio interview on the ruling.
Today's landmark federal district court ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger reinforced what we've long known: our constitution does not countenance laws that seek to separate and exclude LGBT Americans who want nothing more, nor less, than the opportunity to make the legal commitment of marriage to their chosen life partners.
For those of you who aren't keen to slog through the Court's detailed 138 page decision, here's a summary:
- The Court found credible and persuasive the lay and expert witnesses presented by the opponents of Prop 8 (our side). These witnesses provided thoughtful and reliable insights into, among other things, same-sex couples' personal experiences of exclusion; the history of marriage in this country as a civil and ever-evolving institution; the body of research affirming that same-sex couples' relationships share the same relevant characteristics as heterosexual relationships, and those couples derive the same benefits from the institution as heterosexual couples; economic analyses concerning the benefits to married couples, their children, and the state that flow from allowing same-sex couples to legally marry; and the body of research affirming that the children of same-sex couples are comparable to those of heterosexual parents. By contrast, the Court found the experts presented by the proponents of Prop 8 to be unqualified, and their testimony ill-supported and internally inconsistent. The Court concluded, "The Defendants failed to build a credible record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest."
- The Court found that the campaign to support Prop 8 relied on stereotypes to suggest that same-sex relationships are inferior, and stoked fears that children who are exposed to the concept of same-sex couples marrying will themselves become gay or lesbian.
- The Court concluded that the fundamental right to marry, protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, does not exclude same-sex couples, and noted that fundamental rights "may not be submitted to a vote" and "depend on the outcome of no elections." In this case, the proponents of Prop 8 failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant impinging on the fundamental right to marry in the case of same-sex couples.
- The Court concluded that California's domestic partnership law did not satisfy California's constitutional obligation. Among other reasons, the Court noted that domestic partnerships do not have the same social meaning as marriage, and that they were enacted for the purpose of differentiating same-sex unions from marriage.
- The Court suggested that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should trigger "heightened scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause, meaning a more exacting and skeptical evaluation than ordinary classifications, but concluded that Prop 8 does not even survive the more deferential review that courts apply to run-of-the-mill legal classifications. Any legal classification must be "rationally related to a legitimate state interest," and the interests proffered by the proponents of Prop 8 simply didn't pass muster. (Some of the reasons offered by the Prop 8 opponents, and the Court's analysis of them here, resonated eerily with the Baker case from December, 1999.)
- The Court concluded that the absence of sound evidence supporting the justifications offered for Prop 8 gives rise to an inference that the real premise of Prop 8 was and is that same-sex couples simply aren't "as good as opposite-sex couples." Such a belief, ruled the Court, "is not a proper basis on which to legislate."
For these reasons, the Court concluded that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and issued an order enjoining its enforcement (meaning California would issue marriage licenses).
What now?
First of all, the Proponents of Prop 8 have asked for a "stay," keeping the status quo in place pending appeal. Same-sex couples are not likely to start legally marrying (again) any time real soon. Those proponents will have an opportunity to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court can review decisions from that court, though it doesn't have to. (It gets to choose what cases to review.) Today's ruling represents a significant milestone, but the path ahead is still long. If voters in California repeal Prop 8 at the ballot box in 2012, which we hope they will do, the Perry case may actually become "moot."
In the meantime, two federal court cases arising in Massachusetts are taking a different issue on a path that could lead to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue in those cases is not whether same-sex couples have a constitutionally-protected right to get married but, rather, is whether the federal government can constitutionally deny the federal protections of marriage to those couples who ARE married.
Stay tuned. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
