Civil Wars: Gay Marriage in America

Rating:
Summary: A superbly balanced account
Review: Civil Wars is an exceedingly balanced book about the events creating the first civil union legislation for gays in the state of Vermont. Given, such a divisive subject, author David Moats does not interject his own views per se, except where his own experience adds color to the proceedings. Instead, he richly describes the history of the lawsuit that lead to the state Supreme Court decision, which placed the burden upon the legislature to remedy "the exclusion of same-sex couples from the secular benefits and protections offered married couples."

In setting the stage for the events that followed, Moats not only vividly portrays the settings and what transpired in public meetings and both open- and closed-door legislative sessions, but imbues us with a sense of how the majority of the senators and house representatives struggled to do the right thing, often in opposition to their prior beliefs and the constituents in their districts. Given the appalling abuse they took, this took courage.

One leaves this book with the impression that regardless of whether one believes that gays should or should not enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, there are considerable numbers of people out there that don't deserve to be part of the human race, given the disgusting and obscene activities they indulged in, in order to persuade legislators not to pass any kind of pro-gay legislation.

Rating:
Summary: Another Issue Whose Time Has Come?
Review: David Moats is the editorial page editor of the "Rutland Herald" who won a Pulitzer Prize for his editorials in support of gay marriage. "Civil Wars," his book on the subject, reads more like a novel in the thriller genre than a nonfictional account of the judicial and legislative battle over same-sex unions which occurred in the state of Vermont in 2000. In that year the "Green Mountain State" became the first state to grant gay and lesbian couples the right to join in civil unions. In the Prologue to his book, Moats asks the question: "How did such a thing happen in Vermont?" The rest of the book is devoted to providing an answer.

On Monday, December 20, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court rendered its decision in a case brought before it over a year previously. It was a controversial case where the Court was being urged to establish that gay and lesbian couples had the right to marry. The opinion issued by the Court, however, was both a win and a loss for the proponents of gay marriage. While recognizing that the issue was secular rather than religious and that denying marriage to gays violated the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution, the Court ruled that the final disposition of the matter should rest with the state legislature. In a surprising move, the Court had moved the controversy from the judicial realm to the political arena. As a result a new and even more vigorous conflict would ensue.

The narrative that unfolds has all the elements of a good drama: there is joy and sadness, there are high points and lowpoints, there are wins and losses, there are heroes, victims, and the occasional cad, whose behavior at times borders on the incomprehensible. The reader will first meet Beth Robinson, the determined attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court, and then hear the personal stories of the plaintiffs who were courageous enough to come forward and attach their names to the legal action. The reader will also meet many members of the Vermont legislature, those that supported the move toward recognition of same-sex unions and those that opposed it. Their individual stories add a special and telling ingredient to the narrative as a whole. And, in what must be one of the most stirring parts of the book, the author lets the citizens of Vermont speak for themselves, those in favor of the change and those against it.

In my personal opinion, one of the highlights of the book occurs in Chapter Nine. It is really unrelated to the historical events which unfolded during the time the Vermont legislature was dealing with the gay marriage issue, but I think it is an enlightening sidebar to this controversial matter. Sharon Underwood, mother of a gay son, wrote an impassioned opinion piece which appeared in a local newspaper and expressed her anger, as Moats says, "about the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of those who had adopted a moral tone to condemn and attack their neighbors." In her op-ed, Ms. Underwood briefly relates some of the horrific things which happened to her son beginning at the age of six, simply because he was perceived to be "different." Her two-page story alone is worth the price of the book.

Moats is clearly aware of one of the most problematic aspects of the gay marriage issue. He points out early on that "In confronting the issue of gay marriage, the nation confronts a paradox of liberal democracy. The dignity of the individual was a moral value that rested on religious and philosophical traditions prevailing in eighteenth-century Britain and its colonies. Yet liberal democracy lifts that value into the secular realm, where it serves as the premise for equality and justice before the law."

This is an important point. Those who oppose any change in the marriage laws because of the Judeo-Christian tradition which they claim forms the foundation of our society fail to see that, while it is true that many of our moral beliefs are founded on Christian principles, our political framework and the theories underlying it are not. The political foundation of our society is firmly set on ideas derived from the secular, "pagan" cultures of ancient Greece and Rome. Our Republic must in the end be secular and inclusive, and our representative democracy must be fair and just to all citizens. And this may mean a recognition of the fundamental right to choose a marriage partner without interference from the state.

Is there anything missing in Moats' telling of the events he relates? I can think of at least two things I wished he would have explained more in detail but, in fairness to him, he may have considered them irrelevant to the issue at hand or he may have been unable to pursue them. One, I would have liked more information about the rationale of the Catholic legislators who, in apparent defiance of their bishop's directive, supported legalization of gay marriage. Secondly, I would have liked to know why Neil Randall, a Libertarian legislator, would join with Nancy Sheltra, leader of the House conservatives, to derail a domestic partnership bill and push for a constitutional amendment forbidding both gay marriage and domestic partnership. Libertarians are well-known for generally opposing state intervention in strictly personal matters. But, as any student of politics knows, politics makes for strange bedfellows.

In conclusion, this book is definitely not a one-sided partisan report on gay marriage. Although the author is clearly sympathetic to the legalization of gay marriage, he is eminently fair in describing both sides of the issue and in his evaluation of the characters on both sides of the matter. I would recommend his book to all those interested in a fair and balanced discussion of same-sex unions, regardless of the side one currently takes on this very divisive issue, which is sure to claim the attention of the public for some time to come.

Rating:
Summary: There Are Many Heroes Here
Review: David Moats is the editorial page editor of the RUTLAND HERALD and the winner of a Pulitzer for his editorials in support of same-sex unions. This book grew out of Mr. Moats' interest in the whole gay marriage debate and the events that preceded the passage in Vermont of the historical civil union legislation. In this extremely well-written account, Mr. Moats covers all the major events that set the stage for this kind of history to be made in Vermont, that is, the three couples being brave enough to bring suit, the ruling of the Vermont Supreme Court and the ultimate passage into law of civil unions for gay people. He discusses the Stonewall riots, the murder of Harvey Milk, the AIDS epidemic, gays in the military, the lawsuit brought in Hawaii, the increase of adoptions by gay and lesbian couples, and the Matthew Shephard murder. He says in the prologue: In my view, the Vermont story ranks, not just with the Stonewall riots and the murder of Harvey Milk as landmarks of gay history, but with Birmingham and Selma as landmarks of our growth toward a more complete democracy."

Governor Howard Dean showed tremendous courage in signing the civil union bill into law. He conducted himself here as he did when he later ran for the Democratic nomination for president. He was open and frank about doing the right thing. There are many other heroes here, Mr. Moates for starters, who is not gay. Certainly the three couples who brought the lawsuit, their attorneys and other gay people in Vermont were brave beyond measure. There were also many fine and decent people in both houses of state government, who were determined to do the right thing by gay people and in so doing, several of them later lost their seats in the state legislature. Two individuals stand out for me--Bill Lippert, vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Bob Kinsey, a 72 year-old Republican in the House, an elder in the Presbyterian Church where he and his wife had sung in the choir for fifty-two years. Initially he was opposed to any kind of gay marriage or domestic partnership bill but was persuaded to vote for the bill that eventually passed, probably in part because a teepee on his farm that he had built as a warming hut for skaters in the cold Vermont winters mysteriously burned. He believed the fire was caused by arsonists because of his stand on gay rights. "It was the human dimension of the gay marriage bill that touched him. . . He and his wife. . . had learned something about life and love and death. No one was going to instruct him about right and wrong or the disposition of his soul." Mr. Lippert, who is gay, gave an impassioned speech on the House floor that many believed brought his undecided colleagues to his side: "There's something strange about sitting in the midst of a delibertive body that is trying to decide whether I and my fellow gay and lesbian Vermonters should get our rights now. . . Don't tell me about what a committed relationship is and isn't. I've watched my gay brothers care for each other deeply and my lesbian sisters nurse and care. There is no love and no commitment any greater than what I've seen, what I know." When Mr. Lippert sat down, Robert Kinsey rose and said that he had just heard the greatest speech he had heard in his 30 years in government. There are many other instances of quiet and sometimes not so quiet heroism here. The jackals of course came out too. The infamous Phyllis Schlafly and Alan Keyes, to name two, made appearances to spread their hate as well.

Mr. Moats in the last chapter of the book discusses some of the other significant events for gays and lesbians, The United States Supreme Court's striking down the Texas sodomy law, the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in favor of gay marriage as well as the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Canada upholding a lower court's ruling granting the right for gays and lesbians to marry. This book went to press too early for Mr. Moats to include the passage last week by the Georgia House-- the Senate has passed one weeks ago-- of a bill to allow the citizens of Georgia to vote in November for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage although there is already a law on the books in Georgia making gay marriage illegal. Sad to say, Georgia is not Vermont.

Rating:
Summary: Timely and well-written
Review: I moved to Vermont from Texas in August of 2000, shortly after the Vermont legislature passed the civil unions bill. Large signs in people's yards and bright bumper stickers on cars still proclaimed, "Take back Vermont," "Take Vermont forward," and the insidious reply, "Never let Vermont be taken from behind."

Some people, myself included before I moved here, picture Vermont as the quintessentially liberal, hippy state where anything goes. Not so. Emotion ran just as high here as it does now in other places where gay marriage is discussed and performed. David Moats' Pulitzer Prize winning editorials helped maintain civility and promote tolerance in Vermont when the confluence of fear, moral indignation, and a respectful demand for basic civil rights threatened to tear the state apart. By respecting all sides in the discussion, Moats' balance, both in his editorials and now in this book, helps people understand each other, while never concealing his conviction that gay marriage is a basic civil rights issue. This vital balance will be of value to anyone with a serious interest in this issue, no matter on which side of the question you may come down.

And you'll enjoy the book, too! Civil Wars : Gay Marriage in America reads like a thriller, bringing all the characters, with their many human dimensions, to life. Moats shows the drama of people on both sides struggling with their own consciences and dealing with the often very different consciences of their neighbors. He shows how hearing the stories of real people in real situations can bring understanding and respect, even when it may not bring agreement.

And, at the risk of sounding sentimental, I have to admit that I also found this book tremendously inspiring. This is not "inspirational literature," but, like all stories which reach deep into the heart of what it means to be human and to live together in human society, like all stories which deal with people struggling to live honest lives often at great cost to themselves, this is a very touching story. Think Profiles in Courage, think Gandhi, think James Baldwin. This is human history in the making,

Moats' book has given me a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Vermont tradition of local, citizen-involved government, and the realization that the question of gay marriage is a battleground not only for civil rights, but for the definition of America. Are we a society based on respect and liberty, or on some people's religious ideals? The importance of this issue today cannot be underestimated, and Moats' contribution is tremendously valuable.

Rating:
Summary: A Remarkable Journey
Review: Just a short while ago, Vermont wrestled with an issue that's gripping our country in a maelstrom. The end result, as most of us know, was the formation of the controversial but important recognition of same-sex relationships called "civil unions". What most of us don't know is the inner workings of the Vermont government as it came to deal with this issue, and the ultimate political sacrifice that many people played in order to ensure equal rights for all of its citizens. David Moats, editor of the Rutland Herald, describes in detail, how that all transpired in his book "Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage".

Moats approaches the story from a journalistic standpoint as he describes couples who were fighting to get legal recognition of their long term relationships. With the court siding on their side, but giving the problem back to the state legislature, the storm of politics brews quickly and deeply. With the leadership of then governor Howard Dean, we see how the machinations of state government worked to churn out the only viable option at the time, civil unions.

While being very a straightforward book, Moats treats the subject matter fairly and with respect. His handling of the gay relationships, and the people stories, is respectful and honorable. He clearly has opinions on gay marriage, and yet, those opinions doesn't shade his view of the events in Vermont. If you don't agree with legal recognition of gay relationships, at least you can appreciate, by reading this book, the intense scrunity and thoughtfulness those Vermont legislators put into forming this landmark bill.

Perhaps one day, our own Congress will wrestle with the fact that its denying a group of citizens fair and legal recognition of their relationships based solely on whom they love. If that's the case, Moats' book gives us a sense of hope that fair minded people will come to the correct conclusion; that in our country, built upon espoused principals of fairness and equality, people must be afforded the same legal rights and protections offered to all of its citizens. There simply can be no other choice.

Rating:
Summary: Straightforward and fascinating
Review: Of the books I've read on same-sex marriage this is the most straight-forward and readable. Written by the editorial page editor of the Rutland Herald (where he won a Pulitzer prize for his coverage of this issue) the book reads like a novel, filled with interesting characters and dramatic moments.

Moats' thesis is that the Supreme Court in Vermont chose wisely not to mandate same-sex marriage but instead to remand the issue to the legislature. It is his theory that in the end, civil union was a preferable compromise to marriage for two reasons. First, the very process of having the legislature involved, complete with extensive public hearings, allowed many citizens to feel that they were heard and involved in the process. Second, and more important, the creation of civil unions avoided the intense backlash that might have been expected (and had been seen in Hawaii and other states) from a sweeping constitutional ruling mandating marriage.

While I disagree with his conclusions about the advantages of civil unions, the book is fascinating to read and very well written, if a bit dated by recent events.



Rating:
Summary: "We began this lawsuit because it was about family."
Review: This book profoundly affected me. This is an absolutely riveting, educational and incisive account of the battle to pass the nation's first civil union laws for gays and lesbians in Vermont. As a writer for the Rutland Herald, Moats writes with a consummate authority on the issue as he transforms his balanced and humane editorials into a book that almost reads like a work of fiction. From the outset we are introduced to the main protagonists who will play a major role in bringing the Vermont laws into being - the young hotshot lawyers who were only too well aware of the kinds of discrimination that gays faced; the young, gay man who went on to be part of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and who had for years, fought for gay rights; and the three same sex couples who requested marriage licenses in their small Vermont towns, where they basically wanted to solidify their relationship and pronounce their love for each other.

The book raises many interesting issues: The Vermont Supreme Court refused to go the whole way on gay marriage and left the logistics of the issue largely to the Vermont Legislature in the hopes that it would increase and encourage the democratic process. Instead the legislature was left in a mess, "pulled by numerous crosscurrents: their own religious beliefs, the anger of their constituents and the views of the court." Also, the Freedom to Marry Taskforce that was set up in response to the need for gays to solidify their relationships was bitterly disappointed by the ruling. They were hoping for the court's decision to be full, unequivocal marriage rights. But they felt that for society to accept the fact of gay marriage or domestic partnership, "society would have to address the issue squarely, confronting and overcoming prejudices that stood as obstacles to equal rights."

Moats does a good job of placing the fight for civil union laws and gay marriage in the context of the history of the gay rights movement. He outlines the birth of the fledgling movement with the Stonewall riots of the late sixties, he talks about Harvey Milk and his plea, in the seventies, for every gay and lesbian in America to come out, and he also talks about the emergence of fundamentalist Christian movements such as the Moral Majority, who believed that any effort by the state to "recognize the legitimacy of homosexual relationships was a violation of God's word." The book presents the argument that, in general, fundamentalists fear social modernity, and Moats goes into quite a bit of historical depth explaining how this has come about. In the latter part of the twentieth century, sexual freedom and new stresses on the family had put "sex at the center of the battle between religious fundamentalists and the modern world."

Moats also describes how the terrible murder of Mathew Shepard galvanized the country, and made the quest to seek legitimacy for same-sex relationships even more urgent. The book also provides an important lesson in how democracy, the legislature, and the courts work together, and gives an interesting account on the type of "collective bargaining" that takes place between parliamentarians when such issues are bought forward. Also interesting is how the lawyers for the plaintiffs actually argued their case before the courts - they needed to justify that the case had a "heightened scrutiny," which would in turn place a heavy burden on the state to show a compelling reason for denial of marriage rights. Civil Wars is a terrific book that gives a very balanced and often heart-felt view of the issues. Moats never shies away from describing the human cost of the struggle for gay and lesbian rights; and through this book, he is really showing the overwhelming passion and commitment of those select group of people who are now involved in the wider struggle. Mike Leonard March 04.

Rating:
Summary: Anger and emotion unleashed in Vermont
Review: This is a well-written narrative of the process by which civil unions became law in Vermont in 2000. The bulk of the book focuses on how the bill made it through both houses of Vermont's legislature. There is not much suspense here; we know how it all turned out. But Moats does a good job of bringing the issue to life, and he illustrates just how much anger and emotion the debate unleashed among the people of Vermont. And Moats makes his position clear: he is in favor of civil unions.

I learned something from this book. I'd always believed, perhaps naively, that you could convince people to change their minds merely by communicating your views and backing those views up with clear, irrefutable logic. Once someone heard your explanation, they couldn't possibly be unmoved. And yet that didn't work in Vermont. No matter how much logic and reason the civil-union supporters had on their side, many people still didn't change their minds. And yet both houses of the legislature still garnered enough votes to pass the bill. So I've learned that in striving for social change, you don't necessarily need to convince everyone of your views, and, more than that, sometimes you just can't. But as long as you can convince *enough* people, you can achieve the results you hope for.

Rating:
Summary: Anger and emotion unleashed in Vermont
Review: This is a well-written narrative of the process by which civil unions became law in Vermont in 2000. The bulk of the book focuses on how the bill made it through both houses of Vermont's legislature. There is not much suspense here; we know how it all turned out. But Moats does a good job of bringing the issue to life, and he illustrates just how much anger and emotion the debate unleashed among the people of Vermont. And Moats makes his position clear: he is in favor of civil unions.

I learned something from this book. I'd always believed, perhaps naively, that you could convince people to change their minds merely by communicating your views and backing those views up with clear, irrefutable logic. Once someone heard your explanation, they couldn't possibly be unmoved. And yet that didn't work in Vermont. No matter how much logic and reason the civil-union supporters used, many people still didn't change their minds. And yet the legislature passed the bill anyway. So I've learned that you don't necessarily need to convince everyone of your views, and, more than that, sometimes you just can't. But as long as you can convince *enough* people, you can achieve the results you hope for.