Jan 30, 2004  |  By: KEVIN RIORDAN  | COMMENTS     

WHETHER ADVOCATES call it marriage equality, same-sex marriage or gay marriage, the notion of two men or two women legally marrying each other so upsets some folks — including more than a few gay people — that civilized discussion, much less civility, can be nearly impossible.

Such has been the case even in picturesque, pastoral, generally liberal Vermont, as David Moats’ new book, “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage,” which is scheduled to be released Monday, Feb. 2, makes clear. Approval of gay civil marriage-in-all-but-name by the Green Mountain State’s Legislature four years ago was unprecedented in the United States and was achieved only after a ferocious political fight that underscores the stakes in the current national debate about marriage equality.

Timely, insightful, and often moving, Moats’ book benefits from the same fundamental decency that animated his eloquent series of same-sex marriage editorials in the Rutland (Vt.) Herald, for which the newspaper was awarded the 2001 Pulitzer Prize. “Civil Wars” is impressive not only for its similarly calm and commonsense tone, but for the depth of its reporting about the judicial, legislative and political process, as well as its vivid portraits of those who fought for and against the civil unions measure.

And Moats deftly captures the signature combination of calculated shrewdness and offhand bluntness that led then-Gov. — now Democratic presidential candidate — Howard Dean to sign the civil unions bill in virtual secrecy one minute, and then publicly and passionately praise it the next.

“I wanted the book to be a human story,” Moats, 56, said in a recent interview from the Herald’s newsroom. “I didn’t want to just rehash the news. I also wanted to put in the context of the national movement.”

“Civil Wars” takes due note of everything from the rise of gay liberation to last summer’s landmark Lawrence vs. Texas ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down state sodomy laws. The book also anticipates the ruling the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down late last year, declaring the Bay State’s prohibition against gay civil marriage unconstitutional.

Nationally, the issue has continued to percolate (if not boil) since Moats’ book went to print, as President Bush continues to profess devotion to the notion of marriage as strictly a male-female arrangement, and increasingly hints he just might cave in to right-wing demands that he come out for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, New Jersey, where a case similar to the one in Massachusetts is expected to reach the state Supreme Court, recently passed legislation that bolsters benefits for and official recognition of committed same-sex relationships.

A DIVORCED, HETEROSEXUAL father of three who grew up in California, Moats noted that civil unions — so revolutionary just four years ago — have emerged as the “moderate alternative” not only for some same-sex marriage advocates, but for some opponents as well. He believes efforts to ban any and all official recognition of same-sex relationships will prove to be “a real stretch, a real reach.”

And Moats is optimistic about the future.

“These things become easier,” he said. “As New Jersey shows, [recognition of same-sex relationships] becomes less and less threatening.”

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national advocacy organization Freedom to Marry, agrees.

“After all the drama, virtually no one in Vermont is working seriously” to repeal civil unions, Wolfson, who’s described in “Civil Unions” as “cherubic and bald,” said in an interview from his organization’s Manhattan offices. “People have learned to live with it.”

Nevertheless, the issue of same-sex marriage raises the question of what Moats calls the “ownership” of a revered (if troubled) social institution.

“Marriage goes to the heart of who we are … to the heart of our emotional lives,” he said. “People build their lives around marriage, and the person they love … gay marriage challenges everything they hold sacred.”

IN VERMONT, THE battle began in 1997, when activist attorneys persuaded three same-sex couples to apply for marriage licenses (similar strategies would subsequently be used in Massachusetts and New Jersey). The couples were turned down, sparking litigation that ended up before the state Supreme Court.

In 1999, the court, whose deliberations “Civil Unions” renders in persuasive detail, ruled that refusal to issue the licenses violated the Vermont Constitution, and directed the Legislature to craft a remedy.

The political battle was brutal; 1,500 people jammed the statehouse in Montpelier for the first hearing, offering heartfelt, occasionally heart-tugging and sometimes stupendously bigoted testimony. As the state struggled with the issue of same-sex marriage, gay people were often publicly maligned in language that went beyond ...