Speakers: Rev. Jane Dwinell, First Universalist Parish, Derby Line, Vermont
Rev. Carol Karlson, All Souls UU, West Brattleboro, Vermont
About 60 people attended a workshop in which Rev. Dwinell and Rev. Karlson reviewed the recent history of the "Freedom to Marry" movement in Vermont. In summary, after some preliminary discussion, a group of plaintiffs and attorneys determined that it was feasible to bring a legal action asserting the right of same-sex couples to marry. In laying the ground-work for this suit, the attorneys, Beth Robinson and Susan Murray, realized that grass-roots support and education for this issue would be key to the ultimate outcome of the issue.
To create this kind of support and education they organized local interest groups whose purpose was to create a trained "speakers group" who had not only a knowledge of the facts of the issue, but who had also been trained to engage constructively in the debate. In particular, the focus was on finding common language with those of different views, and cultivating an ability speak dispassionately on the issue. The consensus was that confrontation, especially in the early stages of the debate, would not be constructive.
After a number of training sessions, a small "speakers bureau" formed, ultimately constituting the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force. Before the lawsuits were filed, they proactively sought out civic and community organizations to educate them on this issue. They also developed a number of collateral printed materials in the same educational tone. Overall, this was a successful strategy.
Another element of the strategy was not to let anti-marriage opinions in the newspapers go unchallenged. Intense monitoring of local papers meant that each anti-marriage letter could be answered by another in kind. The most effective letters were those which responded to the tenor of the opposition argument; a letter attacking same-sex marriage on religious grounds would be responded to by a religious leader; one from an educator would be responded to by an educator, etc.
Ultimately, when the issue was publicly argued in the Supreme Court, its visibility increased dramatically, and it attracted opponents from outside Vermont. Rev. Dwinell was faced with the decision of how to respond to these outside influences. Rather than choosing a path of confrontation, she choose to organize an interfaith service at which religious leaders and members of various faiths could express their support for same-sex marriage. At the closing of the arguments in the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs and lawyers joined the service, which resulted in positive media coverage. Meanwhile, a small group of UU youth independently decided that they had to be a visible presence corresponding to the outside agitators. But their response was a silent protest, in keeping with the low-key and civil nature of the advocacy on this issue.
The consistent focus on the faith-based aspects of advocacy for this issue created flexibility and room for debate for the legislators. By refusing to abandon faith-based arguments to opponents of same-sex marriage, the Task Force enabled them to see the diversity of religious opinion on the subject. In particular, it was powerful to be able to testify as UU ministers, with the support of GA resolutions, in favor of same-sex marriage. Unlike ministers from other faiths who testified in favor of same-sex marriage, when asked, "Does your denomination support the position you just outlined?", UU ministers could answer unambiguously, "Yes."
UU congregations organized specific lobbying days, which were important in terms of supporting the legislators, and demonstrating that there were organized groups of diverse people who supported the same-sex marriage issue. This was particularly important because there were groups from outside the state with organized presences at the state house.
The nuts-and-bolts of this effort is important. It's a matter of writing a lot of letters and being there to support legislators. Legislators received (and continue to receive) a lot of hate-mail on this subject. Rev. Dwinell mentioned that she was among those who write personal notes of support to all the legislators. She (and groups of UUs) went to legislative breakfasts, at which legislators heard from their constituents. Many gay and lesbian Vermonters shared their personal stories with their legislators, and several invited their legislators to join their families for a meal. In general, the less abstract the issue became, the more sympathetic the lawmakers were to the issue.
During the session, there was some discussion of whether some of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage could serve to split the gay and lesbian communities, and whether they might marginalize parts of those communities. There was also some discussion of the patriarchal nature of marriage as an institution. But in both cases, the discussion returned to the fact that for the plaintiffs and for their lawyers, as well as for such a consensus as developed within the Vermont gay and lesbian community, this was a strategy worth pursuing.
The discussion also touched on the funding and fund-raising aspects of the campaign for same-sex marriage, and on political action in the up-coming elections.
Overall, the message was that a great deal of not-so-glamorous preparation is critical to set the terms of the debate on this kind of issue. Creating a cadre of well trained, well oriented, and articulate spokespeople, and deploying them in local communities through local organizations, and supporting legislators who may be taking unpopular opinions are key components of a successful grass-roots strategies.
