2000-2001: Civil unions

…which, in 2000, creates a brand new legislative scheme called civil unions – thereby, of course, “eliminating” uncertainty and confusion.

The Vermont Statutes Annotated states,

Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.

Civil unions are a quasi-marital status granted by the state in the same fashion that a marriage license is granted. One of the Vermont legislature’s criteria, however, is that both parties to a civil union “[b]e of the same sex and therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this state.” This is a necessary restriction in the attempt to keep things equal. Otherwise, opposite-sex couples would have the option of either marriage or civil union, while same-sex couples would have only the option of civil union, thus violating the “constitutional obligation” of equal treatment – assuming, of course, that civil union was indeed equal to marriage.

Being a Vermont statute, however, this guarantee of “the same benefits, protections and responsibilities” is valid only as it pertains to Vermont law. And, as we’ve seen, there’s a huge body of federal statute and case law pertaining to marriage that this guarantee cannot and does not intend to address.

More constitutional amendments and their fallout

Do Not Enter sign In the elections of November 2000, we see two more states – Nebraska and Nevada – pass constitutional amendments in reaction to the Vermont ruling.

And in 2001, we see final resolution of the Alaska case which, like Hawaii, overturns the former victory, as a result of the constitutional amendment adopted in 1998.

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)