Baker v. Vermont
Encyclopedia
Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999), was handed down on December 20, 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court
. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married
couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature
was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights.
In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples, but only after an acrimonious and deeply polarizing debate which touched every corner of the state. The court's decision in Baker, along with the legislature's enactment of civil unions, spurred a prominent popular backlash under the slogan Take Back Vermont
.
, Shelburne
and South Burlington
. The couples subsequently sued their respective towns, and the state of Vermont, requesting a declaratory judgment
that the license refusal violated Vermont's marriage statutes and Constitution. The plaintiffs were represented by Mary Bonauto, an attorney from Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and two Vermont attorneys: Susan Murray and Beth Robinson
. Robinson, who later chaired Vermont Freedom to Marry, was subsequently appointed to the Vermont Supreme Court by governor Peter Shumlin.
The state, along with two of the towns, moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that no relief could be legally granted for the plaintiffs' grievances. The trial court, located in Chittenden County
, granted the defendants' motion, ruling additionally that the marriage statutes could not be construed to allow same-sex marriages, and that the statutes were constitutional because they served the public interest by promoting "the link between procreation and child rearing".
The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court
in Montpelier
. The court received brief
s and oral argument
s, including an amicus brief from The Vermont Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights and the People For the American Way Foundation.
to male-female pairs, the court held that both the common dictionary definition of marriage, in addition to the legislative intent (the relevant statutes were enacted in 1945) favored the interpretation of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Additionally, the terms "bride
" and "groom" were interpreted as being gender-specific, further supporting the State's interpretation. Therefore, this portion of the plaintiffs' argument was rejected.
In the absence of a statutory right to same-sex marriage, the plaintiffs argued that the Vermont Constitution's Common Benefits Clause (Chapter I, Article 7), which guarantees all citizens equal benefit and protection of the law, guarantees same-sex couples' right to the substantial benefits and protections of marriage. The plaintiffs also addressed the lower court's justification for limiting marital status to male-female couples—linking marital status to child rearing—noting that Vermont law recognizes same-sex couples' right to adopt
children, and to parent children conceived by natural and artificial means. They questioned a system that explicitly allowed same-sex partners to parent, but denied them (and their adopted children) the benefits and security of marriage.
The court first noted the significant difference between the State Constitution's Common Benefit Clause and the Equal Protection Clause
of the Federal Constitution's 14th amendment, both in intent and provenance: the Common Benefit Clause was an original component of the 1777 Vermont Constitution, preceding its Federal "cousin" by several decades. Although Vermont is bound by the Federal Constitution, it is free to provide additional rights to its citizens than might be constitutionally granted to citizens of other states. The application of the Common Benefit Clause has historically been significantly different from the federal courts' application of the Equal Protection Clause. While the Equal Protection Clause is typically invoked only under very limited circumstances (with a heavy burden on the complainant to show discrimination
), the Common Benefit Clause is read to require that "statutory exclusions from publicly-conferred benefits and protections must be 'premised on an appropriate and overriding public interest.'"
Having already determined that Vermont marriage statutes implicitly excluded same-sex couples from marrying, the court addressed the premise that such exclusions were justified by "overriding public interest". The court examined and rejected the State's argument that same-sex marriages would do harm by weakening the link between marriage and child rearing, based largely on the arguments provided by the plaintiffs. Next, the court acknowledged the reality that not every law could be made perfect, and that various practicalities needed to be taken into account. Examining the statutes, however, the court determined that there was no issue of administrative necessity or pragmatism that justified the arbitrary exclusion of certain individuals from the rights and privileges accorded by marriage. The court acknowledged that the legislature might justify the various child-rearing arguments made against same-sex marriages, if it adopted a consistently discouraging policy toward same-sex child-rearing. Noting that as recently as 1996, the legislature had authorized bills promoting same-sex adoption, the state determined that such a consistent policy did not exist (this provision, however, did outline a potential path by which the legislature might avoid providing marriage rights to same-sex couples in the future if it so chose.) The court also rejected as an argument the potential lack of inter-state conformity that might result from a legal recognition of same-sex marriages in Vermont, pointing out that Vermont already allowed for certain marriage contracts not recognized by other states (including first-cousin marriages), and noting that such concerns had not prevented the passage of similarly unique laws allowing same-sex couples to adopt.
The court held that the remaining arguments, such as those concerning the "stability" of same-sex couples, were too nebulous or speculative to be considered. Even though such arguments might apply to certain same-sex couples, it would not justify the inequalities placed on those couples who achieved permanent relationships. Additionally, the same arguments could similarly be applied to male-female partnerships.
Addressing the issue of remedy, the court declined to grant outright the plaintiffs' request for a marriage license, and instead focused on correcting the acknowledged inequities of the existing statutes. Stipulating that "some future case may attempt to establish that notwithstanding equal benefits and protections under Vermont law—the denial of a marriage license operates per se to deny constitutionally-protected rights," the court decided that this was not the issue being addressed by the case at hand. Instead, the court laid out a set of directives requiring the State to implement some system whereby same-sex couples would be granted equivalent statutory rights and privileges to male-female couples. This system could be implemented via the modification of the marriage statutes to allow for same-sex marriages, or it might be implemented via some system of "domestic partnership
" arrangements (the solution eventually adopted by the legislature.) In making this decision, some members of the court complained that they were unnecessarily "abdicating" their constitutional duty to implement the most straightforward remedy, while the others responded that with this decision they had done a great deal, and the remaining decisions were political in nature.
Currently Vermont and Connecticut
are the only states to maintain and enforce such constitutional protections guaranteeing same-sex couples the same rights and privileges accorded to married couples, while Massachusetts
allows marriage both in name and practice between same-sex partners. Similar decisions in Hawaii
and California
were rendered moot by those states' adoptions of constitutional amendments in 1998 and 2008, respectively.
Vermont Supreme Court
The Vermont Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority of the U.S. state of Vermont and is one of seven state courts of Vermont.The Court consists of a chief justice and four associate justices; the Court mostly hears appeals of cases that have been decided by other courts...
. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married
Marriage
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found...
couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature
Vermont General Assembly
The Vermont General Assembly is the legislative body of the U.S. state of Vermont. The Legislature is formally known as the "General Assembly," but the style of "Legislature" is commonly used, including by the body itself...
was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights.
In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples, but only after an acrimonious and deeply polarizing debate which touched every corner of the state. The court's decision in Baker, along with the legislature's enactment of civil unions, spurred a prominent popular backlash under the slogan Take Back Vermont
Take Back Vermont
Take Back Vermont was a slogan and associated movement that attained prominence in the U.S. state of Vermont in the year 2000. The movement was triggered by the state legislature's passage of a civil unions bill in 2000. Its aim, though, was wider than repealing the civil unions law...
.
Background
The case was brought by three same-sex couples who applied for and were denied marriage licenses in the towns of MiltonMilton, Vermont
Milton is a town in Chittenden County, Vermont, United States. The population was 10,352 at the 2010 census. According to local legend, the town was named for the English poet John Milton, but the name most likely originated from William FitzWilliam, 4th Earl FitzWilliam, who held the title...
, Shelburne
Shelburne, Vermont
Shelburne is a town in southwestern Chittenden County, Vermont, United States, along the shores of Lake Champlain. The population was 7,144 at the 2010 census.-History:...
and South Burlington
South Burlington, Vermont
-Economy:CommutAir, a regional airline, is headquartered in the city, by the airport. The Magic Hat Brewing Company, one of the United States's larger craft breweries, is located here.One measure of economic activity is retail sales...
. The couples subsequently sued their respective towns, and the state of Vermont, requesting a declaratory judgment
Declaratory judgment
A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a dispute. A declaratory judgment is legally binding, but it does not order any action by a party. In this way, the declaratory judgment is like an action to...
that the license refusal violated Vermont's marriage statutes and Constitution. The plaintiffs were represented by Mary Bonauto, an attorney from Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and two Vermont attorneys: Susan Murray and Beth Robinson
Beth Robinson
Beth Robinson is an American lawyer from Vermont who was appointed in October 2011 to the Vermont Supreme Court. Her nomination, made by Governor Peter Shumlin, requires confirmation from the Vermont Senate although, according to the Burlington Free Press, this is "seen as assured"...
. Robinson, who later chaired Vermont Freedom to Marry, was subsequently appointed to the Vermont Supreme Court by governor Peter Shumlin.
The state, along with two of the towns, moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that no relief could be legally granted for the plaintiffs' grievances. The trial court, located in Chittenden County
Chittenden County, Vermont
Chittenden County is a county located in the U.S. state of Vermont. As of 2010, the population was 156,545. Its shire town is Burlington. Chittenden is the most populous county in the state, with more than twice as many residents as Vermont's second-most populous county, Rutland.Chittenden County...
, granted the defendants' motion, ruling additionally that the marriage statutes could not be construed to allow same-sex marriages, and that the statutes were constitutional because they served the public interest by promoting "the link between procreation and child rearing".
The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court
Vermont Supreme Court
The Vermont Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority of the U.S. state of Vermont and is one of seven state courts of Vermont.The Court consists of a chief justice and four associate justices; the Court mostly hears appeals of cases that have been decided by other courts...
in Montpelier
Montpelier, Vermont
Montpelier is a city in the U.S. state of Vermont that serves as the state capital and the shire town of Washington County. As the capital of Vermont, Montpelier is the site of the Vermont State House, seat of the legislative branch of Vermont government. The population was 7,855 at the 2010...
. The court received brief
Brief (law)
A brief is a written legal document used in various legal adversarial systems that is presented to a court arguing why the party to the case should prevail....
s and oral argument
Oral argument
Oral arguments are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute...
s, including an amicus brief from The Vermont Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights and the People For the American Way Foundation.
Decision
The unanimous decision of the Vermont Supreme Court first addressed the plaintiff's contention that the denial of same-sex unions was a violation of the Vermont marriage statutes. Although the statutes did not explicitly limit the definition of marriageMarriage
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found...
to male-female pairs, the court held that both the common dictionary definition of marriage, in addition to the legislative intent (the relevant statutes were enacted in 1945) favored the interpretation of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Additionally, the terms "bride
Bride
A bride is a woman about to be married or newlywed.The word may come from the Proto-Germanic verb root *brū-, meaning 'to cook, brew, or make a broth' which was the role of the daughter-in-law in primitive families...
" and "groom" were interpreted as being gender-specific, further supporting the State's interpretation. Therefore, this portion of the plaintiffs' argument was rejected.
In the absence of a statutory right to same-sex marriage, the plaintiffs argued that the Vermont Constitution's Common Benefits Clause (Chapter I, Article 7), which guarantees all citizens equal benefit and protection of the law, guarantees same-sex couples' right to the substantial benefits and protections of marriage. The plaintiffs also addressed the lower court's justification for limiting marital status to male-female couples—linking marital status to child rearing—noting that Vermont law recognizes same-sex couples' right to adopt
Adoption
Adoption is a process whereby a person assumes the parenting for another and, in so doing, permanently transfers all rights and responsibilities from the original parent or parents...
children, and to parent children conceived by natural and artificial means. They questioned a system that explicitly allowed same-sex partners to parent, but denied them (and their adopted children) the benefits and security of marriage.
The court first noted the significant difference between the State Constitution's Common Benefit Clause and the Equal Protection Clause
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
of the Federal Constitution's 14th amendment, both in intent and provenance: the Common Benefit Clause was an original component of the 1777 Vermont Constitution, preceding its Federal "cousin" by several decades. Although Vermont is bound by the Federal Constitution, it is free to provide additional rights to its citizens than might be constitutionally granted to citizens of other states. The application of the Common Benefit Clause has historically been significantly different from the federal courts' application of the Equal Protection Clause. While the Equal Protection Clause is typically invoked only under very limited circumstances (with a heavy burden on the complainant to show discrimination
Discrimination
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. The term began to be...
), the Common Benefit Clause is read to require that "statutory exclusions from publicly-conferred benefits and protections must be 'premised on an appropriate and overriding public interest.'"
Having already determined that Vermont marriage statutes implicitly excluded same-sex couples from marrying, the court addressed the premise that such exclusions were justified by "overriding public interest". The court examined and rejected the State's argument that same-sex marriages would do harm by weakening the link between marriage and child rearing, based largely on the arguments provided by the plaintiffs. Next, the court acknowledged the reality that not every law could be made perfect, and that various practicalities needed to be taken into account. Examining the statutes, however, the court determined that there was no issue of administrative necessity or pragmatism that justified the arbitrary exclusion of certain individuals from the rights and privileges accorded by marriage. The court acknowledged that the legislature might justify the various child-rearing arguments made against same-sex marriages, if it adopted a consistently discouraging policy toward same-sex child-rearing. Noting that as recently as 1996, the legislature had authorized bills promoting same-sex adoption, the state determined that such a consistent policy did not exist (this provision, however, did outline a potential path by which the legislature might avoid providing marriage rights to same-sex couples in the future if it so chose.) The court also rejected as an argument the potential lack of inter-state conformity that might result from a legal recognition of same-sex marriages in Vermont, pointing out that Vermont already allowed for certain marriage contracts not recognized by other states (including first-cousin marriages), and noting that such concerns had not prevented the passage of similarly unique laws allowing same-sex couples to adopt.
The court held that the remaining arguments, such as those concerning the "stability" of same-sex couples, were too nebulous or speculative to be considered. Even though such arguments might apply to certain same-sex couples, it would not justify the inequalities placed on those couples who achieved permanent relationships. Additionally, the same arguments could similarly be applied to male-female partnerships.
Addressing the issue of remedy, the court declined to grant outright the plaintiffs' request for a marriage license, and instead focused on correcting the acknowledged inequities of the existing statutes. Stipulating that "some future case may attempt to establish that notwithstanding equal benefits and protections under Vermont law—the denial of a marriage license operates per se to deny constitutionally-protected rights," the court decided that this was not the issue being addressed by the case at hand. Instead, the court laid out a set of directives requiring the State to implement some system whereby same-sex couples would be granted equivalent statutory rights and privileges to male-female couples. This system could be implemented via the modification of the marriage statutes to allow for same-sex marriages, or it might be implemented via some system of "domestic partnership
Domestic partnership
A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by marriage nor a civil union...
" arrangements (the solution eventually adopted by the legislature.) In making this decision, some members of the court complained that they were unnecessarily "abdicating" their constitutional duty to implement the most straightforward remedy, while the others responded that with this decision they had done a great deal, and the remaining decisions were political in nature.
Currently Vermont and Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States. It is bordered by Rhode Island to the east, Massachusetts to the north, and the state of New York to the west and the south .Connecticut is named for the Connecticut River, the major U.S. river that approximately...
are the only states to maintain and enforce such constitutional protections guaranteeing same-sex couples the same rights and privileges accorded to married couples, while Massachusetts
Massachusetts
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States of America. It is bordered by Rhode Island and Connecticut to the south, New York to the west, and Vermont and New Hampshire to the north; at its east lies the Atlantic Ocean. As of the 2010...
allows marriage both in name and practice between same-sex partners. Similar decisions in Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii is the newest of the 50 U.S. states , and is the only U.S. state made up entirely of islands. It is the northernmost island group in Polynesia, occupying most of an archipelago in the central Pacific Ocean, southwest of the continental United States, southeast of Japan, and northeast of...
and California
California
California is a state located on the West Coast of the United States. It is by far the most populous U.S. state, and the third-largest by land area...
were rendered moot by those states' adoptions of constitutional amendments in 1998 and 2008, respectively.
Marriage
Vermont legalized same-sex marriage effective September 1, 2009. Civil unions entered into prior to September 1 will continue to be recognized as civil unions. Couples currently in a civil union who want to be married will need to go through the new marriage process.External links
- Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (full text)