<<Same-Sex Marriage Movement
Gets Tangled in its Own Web
MATHEW D. STAVER
Founder, Liberty Counsel
On July 1, 2000, same-sex marriage advocates cheered when Vermont’s civil union law took effect. Two years and two court decisions later, these same activists are left scratching their heads wondering what went wrong. The apparent “victory” for homosexual rights has now turned into a legal quagmire, creating unforetold consequences for those who hastily obtained a so-called civil union.
In response to a decision by the Vermont Supreme Court, the state legislature passed a law creating these civil unions. The Vermont civil union law created a parallel statute to the state’s civil marriage law. Civil marriage in Vermont remains for one man and one woman. Same-sex couples may apply for a civil union which, although not the same as civil marriage, essentially affords the same benefits as are afforded to traditional marriages. Thus, in Vermont, a civil union partner has the same inheritance rights as a spouse in a civil marriage.
Although a form of second-class marriage, this new creature was hailed by homosexual activists as the next best thing to marriage. In order to encourage homosexuals from around the country to obtain a civil union, the Vermont law does not require either partner to be a resident of Vermont. However, to dissolve a civil union, one of the same-sex partners must live in Vermont for six months prior to filing for dissolution, and once filed, the hearing on the dissolution cannot take place any earlier than six months thereafter.
Following the passage of the civil union law, four questions remained unanswered: (1) Will states outside Vermont consider a civil union the equivalent of marriage? (2) Whether or not a civil union is considered the equivalent of marriage, will other states recognize a civil union as marriage? (3) If a state prohibits same-sex marriage, will the Full Faith in Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution require the state to recognize Vermont’s civil union as marriage? And (4) will states outside of Vermont take jurisdiction over a civil union to dissolve the relationship? All four of these questions have now been answered, and same-sex marriage proponents are no longer cheering.
In Burns v. Burns, Liberty Counsel defended Darian Burns against a challenge by his ex-wife, Susan. Their marriage broke up when Susan began having lesbian affairs. After the marriage dissolved, Darian obtained custody of their children, while Susan was afforded visitation rights. The Georgia court ordered that neither party should have overnight stays with the children when cohabiting with an adult to whom he or she was not married.
For a period of time, Susan obeyed the visitation order. During visitation weekends, her lesbian partner would leave the home. However, Susan left her partner and entered into another lesbian relationship. On July 4, 2000, Susan and her new partner traveled to Vermont and obtained a civil union. The two then returned to Georgia, where they continued to reside. Susan then asked the Georgia court to allow her full visitation in the presence of her new partner, claiming that she was now married under the Vermont civil union law.
The Georgia court rejected Susan’s claim that she was legally married to a same-sex partner. The Burns court ruled that (1) a Vermont civil union is not marriage, even in Vermont and (2) if a civil union were considered marriage, Georgia would not recognize such a union because Georgia’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) exclusively defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and (3) the federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that one state is not required to recognize an out-of-state same-sex union. The Burns decision was historic because it was the first to address these issues. The same-sex marriage movement was dealt a huge setback by this decision.
Shortly after the Burns decision, a Connecticut court in the case of Rosengarten v. Downes, addressed the issue of whether the state had jurisdiction to dissolve a Vermont civil union. In Rosengarten, two male homosexuals traveled to Vermont in 2000 to obtain a civil union license. Shortly thereafter, the relationship broke up. One of the men lived in Connecticut, while the other moved to New York. The Connecticut resident filed a petition in the state court to dissolve the civil union. The Connecticut court stated it had no jurisdiction to dissolve the union.
Although Connecticut does not have a state DOMA, the history of marriage in that state clearly indicated that marriage is a union solely between one man and one woman. The court then looked at the federal DOMA and rightly concluded that one state is not required to recognize an out-of-state same-sex union. Thus the Connecticut court answered the fourth, namely that only Vermont can dissolve a civil union.
Same-sex marriage advocates apparently had no idea of the legal web they were weaving. Considering the Georgia and Connecticut decisions, it is clear that a civil union is not worth the paper it’s written on outside the borders of Vermont. Civil unions are not marriage, even in Vermont, and therefore, other states will not recognize them. If a civil union is not the equivalent of marriage in Vermont, then other jurisdictions will not transform a civil union into civil marriage. To do so would essentially be equivalent to transforming an out-of-state driver’s license into a pilot’s license.
Since civil unions are confined to the borders of Vermont, other states have no jurisdiction to dissolve these unions. This is critical, because currently 4,122 civil unions have been issued, of which 83.5 percent have been obtained by non-Vermont residents.
Tampering with traditional marriage and common sense has caused a legal quagmire for the same-sex marriage movement. The two court decisions in Georgia and Connecticut have dealt a serious setback to the same-sex marriage movement.
For more information about Liberty Counsel, please call 800-671-1776, or visit www.lc.org.
>> |
