AMY GOODMAN: We now move north to Vermont. In a landmark decision reached Monday, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in favor of three same-sex couples who challenged the constitutionality of Vermont’s marriage laws. The court concluded in Baker v. State that statutory benefits and protections of marriage must be extended to same-sex couples, and instructed the Vermont state Legislature to remedy the discrimination. Now same-sex couples in Vermont are eligible for a wide variety of protections of laws which recognize the relationship of married partners. For example, partners will be able to inherit from each other without a will, transfer property to each other without paying taxes, and make medical decisions if the other spouse is incapacitated.

Meanwhile, across the country, in California, a ballot initiative called Proposition 22, which is sponsored by California state Senator Peter Knight, would prevent California from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples. This would include couples who were married in other states. The Knight Initiative would add the following provision to the California Family Code: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized.”

Today we’re joined by two people to talk about the issue of same-sex marriages and the state of recognition of them around the country. We’re joined by the lawyer in the case of Baker v. State in Vermont, Mary Bonauto, who is a Civil Rights Project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. And Michael Wald joins us from California, professor of law at Stanford University.

Mary Bonauto, can you start off by laying out exactly what your victory was this week?

MARY BONAUTO: Sure. I think you did it very well in your introduction. We represented three same-sex couples who were seeking the same protections and benefits under law as are presently available to married couples. We also sought marriage licenses. And what the court did in this case is say there is a constitutional violation here. Same-sex couples are absolutely being deprived of a common benefit and protection that the government provides, which is all those protections that come from marriage. Marriage has changed over the years to become freighted with all kinds of laws and protections, and not making the — making those unavailable to same-sex couples is a massive discrimination.

So, rather than go ahead and require the issuance of marriage licenses, the court basically nodded to its sister branch of government, the Legislature, and said, “Legislature, you’re going to take the first crack at remedying this discrimination. You have to craft an appropriate response to our ruling.” And the court retained jurisdiction of the case to ensure that the Legislature, in fact, fulfills that mandate. That leaves open the door to us, in the event the Legislature is not able to come around to amending the marriage laws to allow licenses to be issued. The court did make some overtures to suggesting that there might be some possible parallel or equivalent system that the Legislature could create.

We certainly don’t want to stifle any creativity that the Legislature may engage in. But from our position, marriage licenses need to be made available, unless, for the first time ever in the history of this country, we’re going to create some sort of new partnership system that is portable from state to state, so that you can take that status with you, and that will be binding on third parties, and that will, in fact, provide all of the protections and benefits of marriage, since that’s what the court has ordered.

AMY GOODMAN: And who are the three couples?

MARY BONAUTO: Well, I’m really glad you asked, because this case is about them. The three couples are two lesbian couples and one gay male couple.

One of the couples, who we refer to as Holly and Lois, have been together at this point over 27 years. And as they have gotten older, like all of us are getting older, they’ve become much more focused on issues of long-term security. One of them, primarily, was a homemaker taking care of their child for many years, has worked part-time, but, you know, wouldn’t be able to take advantage of Social Security benefits of her partner if her partner pre-deceases her.

Another of the couples, the second lesbian couple, are parents of a young child. Actually, they have a newborn at this point; he’s a month old. And they had another son, unfortunately, who died of a congenital heart problem last summer. But they initially got involved in this case because they didn’t want their son to grow up in a world where his parents’ relationship to each other wasn’t even recognized. They thought that was a terrible message of inequality and invalidity for their son.

And the third couple, Stan and Peter — and actually it’s Stan Baker who’s the named plaintiff in the case. Stan and Peter are two men who you cannot see them without realizing their deep commitment and devotion to one another. Peter, at the press conference after the ruling the other day, basically started crying as he talked about his parents’ marriage of 47 years and how it has been such an inspiration and anchor for him in life. And Stan actually pulled out the wedding rings of his two deceased parents to say that they have also always been a model for him.

So, each of these three couples love each other very much. They want to make the commitment to one another through marriage and make sure that they can protect their families with the same kinds of benefits that are available to other folks.

AMY GOODMAN: Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a co-counsel in Baker v. State, the landmark decision that was announced on Monday, the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in favor of three same-sex couples who challenged the constitutionality of Vermont’s marriage laws. As I said, we’re also joined by Professor Wald from Stanford, who’s just come out with a study that deals with the harmful effects that he says Proposition 22.

MICHAEL WALD: California already defines marriage in terms limiting it to a man and a woman, so it would not change anything with respect to who may get married in California. What it would do is have an effect on couples who might get married in another state, if another state authorizes that, and who at some later point would want to move to California. If they came to California, under this statute, their marriages would be undone. They would not be recognized. And all of the commitments that they had made in connection with the marriage might be undone.

I believe that the evidence is clear that it would be harmful to children and to families if this were to pass. But I think that the more important point — and I’ll come back to the harm — is, as the Vermont court recognized, that for the 400,000 same-sex couples who live in California, the 40,000 to 50,000 children, at least, who are living with them, and the many other children living with single gay parents, legal recognition of their relationships is really beneficial for the adults, for the children and for society as a whole, that it creates certainty, it creates stability for them, it protects their sets of expectations, and that steps to make it less likely that such relationships will have legal recognition is harmful to children in and of itself. In addition, as Mary Bonauto was saying of the couple that wanted their children to grow up knowing that the state recognized the legal relationship, a vote for the Knight Initiative would be adding stigma to the relationships and for children, particularly for adolescents, in such families, already know of that stigma. They still do well in the families, but removing that kind of stigma would really be beneficial.

AMY GOODMAN: We have to break for stations to identify themselves. We’ll wrap up when we come back with Professor Wald of Stanford University, who came out with a report on the effects of Proposition 22 in California on families and children, a proposition that says only a marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized. And we’ll also conclude with Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, co-counsel on this historic Vermont decision, and see what happens from here. You’re listening to Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: You’re listening to Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, as we conclude with Professor Wald and Mary Bonauto, with Professor Wald having done this study on the effects of Proposition 22 on families and children. Professor Wald, were you surprised by the Vermont decision?

MICHAEL WALD: I was not surprised by the Vermont decision. I think that both in terms of Vermont law and in terms of, I think, courts looking at the relationships of same-sex couples would need to conclude that they are the equivalent relationships of opposite-sex couples and should receive the same kind of treatment. I think the really key parts, from a California perspective, of the Vermont decision was the court’s rejecting all of the arguments of the state as to why such couples ought to be treated differently, and concluding that in terms of the nature of the relationships between the adults and the parenting of the families, that these were couples that were the same as opposite-sex couples, and serving and allowing them to marry or have a permanent legal status was important and beneficial to the state.

AMY GOODMAN: Mary Bonauto, where does the Vermont Supreme Court decision go from here?

MARY BONAUTO: Well, I hope it goes out as a message, not only to Vermonters, but across the country. The decision was passionate and very humane, and I actually wanted to just bring to your attention one of the statements in the conclusion of the court, which says applying the Constitution to the plaintiffs as Vermonters who are simply seeking the legal protections and security for their avowed relationships — and this is the quote — “is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity.” I believe that that sets a new standard of not only recognizing that it’s 1999, same-sex families exist, they have the same need for protection as other families, but the court is basically saying we really — it’s our job and it’s the job of lawmakers to promote the security of families. Let’s recognize that we’re all human beings here and move on and think about how to do that in a constructive fashion. That, I think, is a message that all lawmakers all across the country could take to heart.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, this decision has to go to the Vermont Legislature?

MARY BONAUTO: It does. They convene in January. They’re due to recess in May. Of course, it’s a big election year, November of 2000, so I’m sure there’ll be some jockeying around about this. As I mentioned earlier, it’s certainly our position that the only way to achieve equality is through equality, which means through the issuance of marriage licenses. And again, we don’t want to stifle any creativity that the Legislature may have in coming up with some genuinely parallel and equivalent and equal system. But I think time will tell.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both very much for being with us. Professor Wald, if people want to get a hold of your report, where can they go? Well, I have the — people can call Stanford University. He just hung up. But I also want to give the information out on the Gay and Lesbian center Advocates and Defenders, which is in Boston. It is 617-426-1350. That’s 617-426-1350.