1999: Baker v. State Of Vermont – a study in contradiction

A constitutional obligation…

But with this step back comes a step forward. In the same month that Baehr is overturned, the Vermont Supreme Court renders its ruling in Baker v. State Of Vermont. The ruling relies on the Alaska and Hawaii cases, the two interracial marriage cases (Perez from California in 1948 and Loving from ’67), and Romer v. Evans, the Colorado amendment case from 1996.

The court says,

[I]n the faith that a case beyond the imagining of the framers of our [state] Constitution may, nevertheless, be safely anchored in the values that infused it, we find a constitutional obligation to extend to plaintiffs the common benefit, protection, and security that Vermont law provides opposite-sex married couples.

…but marriage is not one of the benefits and protections of marriage

Unfortunately, when deciding what should be done about it, the court says,

[W]hile the State’s prediction of ‘destabilization’ cannot be a ground for denying relief, it is not altogether irrelevant. A sudden change in the marriage laws or the statutory benefits traditionally incidental to marriage may have disruptive and unforeseen consequences. Absent legislative guidelines defining the status and rights of same-sex couples, consistent with constitutional requirements, uncertainty and confusion could result.

While holding “that plaintiffs are entitled… to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded… to married opposite-sex couples,” the court does not hold that marriage is one of those benefits. So, rather than simply allowing same-sex couples to marry under the well-established legislative guidelines of legal marriage, it throws the matter to the Legislature…

Timeline key: progress (green), no progress (red), pending court cases (purple),
events that are neutral, not directly related, or with both positive and negative effects (black)