Yesterday, the Vermont Senate passed a bill establishing gay marriage, a piece of business left unfinished since the Vermont Legislature established civil unions ten years ago in response to a Supreme Court case. Here's a news story on that from a local paper, the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, but that's not the focus of the rest of this diary.
http://www.timesargus.com/...
This diary is about two pretty remarkable recent commentaries in the Burlington Free Press, Vermont's largest paper. In 1999, the Free Press editorial board came out against civil unions, and then after the divisive debate that tore the state apart, remained basically silent on the subject until now.
This diary is about the Free Press' editorial of last week, March 17th, in which they dramatically and eloquently reversed their position and came out in favor of gay marriage. And it's about an equally remarkable op-ed piece that appeared today, written by the former Free Press editor who wrote that anti-civil unions editorial ten years ago.
Let's start with the Burlington Free Press editorial of March 17th, which they gave a lot of space to that day. It starts with an endorsement of the gay rights bill, and then takes it up a notch:
In an April 1999 editorial, the Free Press editorial board wrongly warned Vermonters against gay marriage. The years since then have proven our position to be unfounded.
After giving a bit more of the history of civil unions, the editorial returns to what the Free Press said at that time:
In the 1999 editorial we spoke of the need to bridge the cultural divide to reach a consensus if we were to embark on such a major change to a fundamental social institution. We went so far as to warn that becoming the only state to allow same-sex marriage would make Vermont a target hostile to the idea, solemnly predicting, "there will be violence." That prediction of course was pure nonsense.
(emphasis added)
I'm not sure I can remember a newspaper considering and rethinking it's own position this honestly and openly and recanting like this.
After some further powerfully written argument in favor of gay marriage, the current Free Press editorial board finishes with this:
In our society, marriage is no longer just a matter of procreation. Stable relationships between just two people are an essential asset to our community no matter what your gender may be. We recognize families go beyond the age-old definition of father, mother and children. We celebrate marriage for the couple’s commitment to each other.
To question the validity of homosexual couples, or to even imply that the relationship is somehow less than that of a heterosexual couple, shows outright prejudice.
We repeat these words from the 1999 editorial that did make sense: "Vermont boasts a long and proud heritage of civil rights and social tolerance" — and we call for adding marriage equality to that heritage.
The full editorial, which is a great read in its entirety is here:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...
I posted something about this editorial a few days ago in response to a diary about the Vermont Senate's action, and figured I was done with the subject of the Burlington Free Press for a while.
That is until today, when they published an op-ed by the former Free Press editor, Stephen Kiernan who wrote that original editorial against civil unions ten years ago.
Here's Kiernan's first paragraph:
While many people surely noted the Free Press' editorial supporting gay marriage ("Time has come for marriage equality," March 18), possibly no one read that opinion with greater interest than I. Of course, thousands of Vermonters care deeply about this issue. But the Free Press' declaration reversed a 1999 editorial saying Vermont was not ready for same sex marriage. I wrote that editorial -- to my enduring shame.
Followed by a bit about compromise and social justice:
Editorials represent the consensus of the editorial board. In 1999 that board consisted of three people who felt gay marriage was appropriate and fair, and three who believed it was immoral and dangerous. My job was to write something that threaded the needle of where we agreed. And so, when it comes to matters of social justice, I did the worst thing possible: I compromised.
Of course I wasn't the only one. The Legislature compromised by inventing civil unions. Then-Gov. Howard Dean compromised by signing the bill behind closed doors. To his credit, Dean later defended civil unions to Vermont and the nation without apology.
Moving on to the bill that the Vermont Senate just passed, Kiernan notes that Governor Douglas doesn't support it, wishes it would go away and thinks there are more important things the Legislature should be dealing with. And he offers Governor Douglas this advice:
If I may share the perspective of a person who spent a decade knowing his compromising was wrong, I would offer the governor just three words: Stand for something.
(emphasis added again, sorry, had to, the same advice could be given to Gov. Douglas on almost anything....)
In 50 years, when Vermont has weathered this recession and four more, when the state's population is two million and counting, be remembered as the man who stood for something. Instead of avoiding this issue, get in front of it. Don't hesitate, lead. In the best Republican tradition of minimal government, don't allow the state to dictate who a person can and cannot marry. Let yourself be guided by the principles of the nation's Founders, who declared without flinching that the pursuit of happiness was an inalienable right given by our creator to all people equally.
Then after urging Vermonters to get off the sidelines on this issue, Stephen Kiernan returns to what he's felt since he wrote that editorial ten years ago,and finishes with this:
At the very least, 10 years on, you will be able look back at your conduct with a clear conscience.
Here's his whole piece:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...
I'm straight and gay rights is not what I think about every day. When the Vermont Supreme Court issued its ruling ten years ago that led to civil unions, I was then among the many sympathetic people whose first reaction was: "this is going to get ugly, do we have to deal with this now?" That changed quickly for me and I realized that yes we did. In recent days as our Senators debated this issue and ultimately passed the bill by an overwhelming majority, I have been struck by how things can change. The Burlington Free Press editorials were about as dramatic an on-the-record documentation of that change as I could've imagined.
I'm a Justice of the Peace in the town where I live so I can do marriages. I look forward to be able to do that regardless of, etc...