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
hateful;
one
letter
writer
described
homosexuals
as
“filthy
disease
carrying
rodents.”
 |
| David
Moats,
author
of
‘Civil
Wars:
A
Battle
for
Gay
Marriage,’
said
he
wanted
his
book,
scheduled
to
be
released
Feb.
2,
to
be
a
human
story.
‘I
didn’t
want
to
just
rehash
the
news.
I
also
wanted
to
put
in
the
context
of
the
national
movement,’
he
said. |
As
“Civil
Wars”
points
out,
the
very
viciousness
of
some
of
the
anti-gay
testimony,
letters
and
e-mails
made
some
uncommitted
legislators
more
sympathetic
to
civil
unions.
And
as
Moats
writes,
the
entire
process
achieved
“a
major
goal
for
the
freedom
to
marry
advocates”
in
that
it
put
“a
human
face
on
the
issue
of
gay
rights.”
“The
real
lesson
of
the
book
is
the
importance
of
standing
up
for
what
is
right,”
said
Wolfson,
whose
organization
advocates
nothing
less
than
full
marriage
equality
between
gays
and
straights.
“Vermont
took
a
great
step
in
the
right
direction,
but
it
didn’t
do
the
right
thing.”
“Civil
Wars”
shows
that
Vermont’s
experience,
however
relevant
to
the
ongoing
national
debate,
was
somewhat
idiosyncratic.
With
only
608,827
people
in
its
9,250
square
...
