New Justice

by: NanuqFC

Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 16:00:00 PM EST

But for me, the first highlight came half an hour before that, when about-to-be-sworn-in Supreme Court Justice Beth Robinson entered the room to place a folder and a glass of water on the podium. The crowd stood and erupted into applause. Beth made shooshing, sit-down motions, which were ignored for at least 5 minutes. "No, wait, it hasn't started yet," she tried to explain.

Oh, but it had.

The esteem, the respect, the sense of recognition for hard work done with total integrity, the idea of justice achieved for a formerly despised minority – those had all begun, in some cases long before Monday afternoon's ceremony, in others the moment her nomination was announced on October 18.

There was an amazing amount of laughter (check out Glenn Russell's photos) for such a solemn occasion, much of it prompted by Susan Murray, Beth's law partner at Langrock Sperry & Wool and co-activist for marriage equality.

Murray, detailing the qualities that Robinson brings to the Supreme Court, recalled many excursions walking up Mt. Philo together, talking strategy or just taking a break. "Beth would say, 'Excuse me just  a minute,' and then run the rest of the way up the mountain and back. And then, if she still had more energy, she'd do it again. There's not a lazy bone in her body." She called Beth's intelligence "breathtaking," and her mind "agile," and "a pleasure to watch as it worked" through a case.

She assured the other justices of what the rest of us had already seen that afternoon and years before: "There's no grandstanding, no arrogance or ego" to Beth. She listens, is patient, a team player, has an uncanny ability to ask just the right question at the right time, Murray went on. "And most importantly, she has the ability to laugh at herself."

Marriage Equality?

by: Maggie Gundersen

Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:51:30 PM EST

Before I became a Justice of the Peace, I thought civil unions were the cutting edge answer that gay and lesbian couples desired.  

I have been active in my church, and my husband and I just celebrated our 30th wedding anniversary in January.  We also spent we spent five years as a presenting team for Christian Marriage Encounter*, so I believe that I have a clear understanding of the depth of commitment required in a marriage.  

I originally ran for Justice of the Peace because I wanted to be able to perform civil unions as well as weddings, and I was just reelected as a JP.  I am proud that Vermont took that bold cutting edge step of creating civil unions for same sex couples in spite of all the negative rhetoric during the legislative process.  

Each one of the almost 40 weddings and civil unions I have performed during the past two years has been an eye opening and touching event.

I was only halfway through my first season of performing civil unions when I began to feel that something was sadly wrong with our system.  The couples for whom I performed civil unions were as deeply committed and as deeply in love as the heterosexual couples for whom I performed weddings.  While civil unions were a giant step forward for Vermont and the country, civil unions are entirely separate and certainly not equal to marriage.

I am not here to argue what traditional definition of marriage has or has not been.  During different times in history a marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, while in the polygamous societies that exist in some of our allies cultures and right here in the US in some Mormon sects, marriage is between one man and several or many women.  

I am here to talk about marriage as a union between two adults.  

A few months back, while I was out walking my dog, Steve stopped me, and said he wanted to chat.  He said that he had noticed I was a JP and had a question for me.

"What do you think of civil unions and the possibility of gay marriage," Steve asked.

I took a deep breath.  While we have been casual friends for almost four years, I know he is very active in the Roman Catholic Church and recently lost his wife following a long illness.  

Nervously, I said I have come to believe marriage equality is the direction in which we must move.  The couples for whom I am performing civil unions are as deeply in love and committed to each other as the couples for whom I perform weddings. I believe, however, the issue is quite simple, "separate but equal" is never equal.  

Steve smiled.  "Thank you," he said.  "My daughter is a lesbian.  I love her.  I want her to have the same rights as every person."  

Right now in Vermont, those same rights do not exist.  Civil unions do not afford couples the same legal and financial protections that a marriage does.  It is discrimination.  Growing up in the 1950's and 1960's I met many couples who raised their children without the emotional support of their families or communities simply because the couple was mixed ethnically, religiously, or racially.  Those times must be over.  I have friends here in Vermont who were not accepted as grandchildren by the one half of their family only because one of their parents was French Canadian, so they were considered "foreign".  

It is quite simple.  Stop the discrimination and move away from fear and hatred.  This is not a moral issue.

As someone who has been married for 30-years, I find it encouraging and refreshing to know that once again others value the commitment of marriage.  That commitment should be available for every adult, whether they are of different religions, ethnicity, races, or sexual orientation.

I urge you to come to the Statehouse tomorrow for Freedom to Marry visibility day.  Meet many committed couples and many other Vermonters who support them.  Please join with us to let our governor and legislators know you support equality in marriage.  

If you can't make it to the Statehouse tomorrow (Friday, February 6, 2009), please call, email, and write to the governor and your legislators.  Visit Vermont's Freedom to Marry site for more information: http://eqfed.org/vfmtf/events/...

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin agreed that it is not a question of yes or no in a July 2007 interview with Burlington Free Press reporter Terri Hallenbeck.  

"Shumlin said same-sex marriage legislation is inevitable. "It's not a question of yes or no. It's a question of when," he said."

That quote was almost two years ago.  The time is now.  

One Sentence - One Syllable - One Second

by: Caoimhin Laochdha

Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 05:00:00 AM EST

Here it comes.  The trolls are coming out of the closet to lament how the General Assembly, in this coming 2009 session, will not have no time to pass a law giving equal marriage rights to all Vermonters.

The chorus is chiming in and the preemptive song is that the General Assembly will be legislating 24/7 and Eight.Days.A.Week to get a handle on all the policy problems -- social, fiscal, legal, economic, regulatory,environmental, health care, educational etc. ad nauseam that are gripping our State. Last I heard it was the Republicans and conservatives who tanked the economy - the same people who are so concerned (at the mention of marriage equality) that only the economy should have our attention.

But does that mean that justice necessarily goes on the back burner?

Here is the deal folks: One sentence of Vermont law needs to be changed. One syllable ("All those in favor . . . "AYE") needs to be uttered on the floor of the House and Senate; AND the Governor needs to take just one measly second to sign his James Douglas Hancock to the legislation. Then it's done. It's a big deal, it's important, it's a huge step, but it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. The work is already done, we know the problem, we have the solution. Let's get it done.

Say it with me --

One Sentence  *  One Syllable *  One Second

One Sentence in Title 15 of the Vermont Code to fix. Just one.  One Syllable to utter. Just one.  One Second to put pen to paper. Just one.  That is all it will take to end marital inequality in Vermont.

(there' more, about how little it takes, on the flip)