By Rick Cendo and Gary Hamner

On the eve of the new century, December 20, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court

issued a historic ruling for gay and lesbian couples in America. It ordered the

Vermont State Legislature to provide gay and lesbian couples in marriage-like

relationships with the same protections, rights, and responsibilities as those

enjoyed by married heterosexuals.

Vermont's is not the first state supreme court to issue a ruling of this type.

The Hawaii Supreme Court did so on May 5, 1993, followed by Alaska. But the

Vermont Court's ruling differs from Hawaii and Alaska in several ways that will

make it much more consequential in the lives and dreams of gay couples.

First, the Vermont decision is sustainable. The Hawaiian and Alaskan courts

broke new ground by simply saying that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to

get married and ordering their state governments to issue marriage licenses.

But the suddenness and directness of these rulings created a political backlash.

Anti-gay groups seized on the emotions attached to marriage to push anti-gay

amendments to the state constitutions. The amendments banned marriage by gay

and lesbian couples, thereby overruling the Supreme Court decisions by popular

vote.

The Vermont decision, however, doesn't order the state to start issuing marriage

licenses to gay couples. It says that gay couples are being denied rights and

protections they deserve, and it orders the state legislature to find a

solution, through marriage rights, domestic partnerships, or whatever.

By allowing the democratic process to discuss, deliberate, and seek compromise,

the Vermont decision is much less likely to generate a backlash among voters.

Already, anti-gay groups are playing down expectations that they will overturn

the decision by amending the state constitution by popular vote. They shy away

only because they doubt they can win.

Second, the Vermont decision changes the national debate. Instead of focusing

on the right to marry, the Vermont decision focuses on the right to have one's

relationship legally protected and treated equally by the state. The remedy can

take the form of a statewide domestic partnership law, and it probably will.

By taking the word marriage out of the equation, the Vermont decision robs this

issue of a lot of the emotional reaction that accompanied the Hawaii and Alaska

decisions. In the most eloquent words on this issue to date, the Chief Justice

Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Vermont concludes the unanimous decision by writing:

"The extension of the Common Benefits Clause to acknowledge plaintiffs as

Vermonters who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal protection and security

for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship is

simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity."

Third and most significantly, the Vermont decision offers an excellent model for

other states. The Vermont legislature will probably respond to the court order

by creating a statewide domestic partnership registry, one with far, far more

rights and responsibilities than any registry that exists today.

Some gay activists reject the idea of domestic partnership as second-class

citizenship, or a "separate but equal" status. While we sympathize with their

dissatisfaction, we believe their all-or-nothing approach is misguided.

Social change happens slowly and in increments. It took more than 100 years

after emancipation from slavery for black Americans to achieve civil rights. As

late as 1969, laws barring blacks and whites from marrying existed right here in

this country. Some such laws remain on the books even today, though they were

made unenforceable by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1969).

It is hard to believe that as late as 1981, the mayor of San Francisco, of all

places, vetoed a domestic-partnership registry for gay couples as too radical.

By 1996, Boulder was joining dozens of cities when its city council voted

unanimously to establish a domestic-partnership registry. Denver followed three

years later.

The growth and popularity of municipal registries in California prompted the

state government this year to create a statewide registry. California follows

Hawaii, and will be joined by Vermont, and then by several more New England

states, we predict.

This pattern is similar to what has happened in Europe. Holland began with the

"radical" notion of a national d-p registry for gays in 1981. It was followed

by all the other Scandinavian nations, and, this year, by France.

Following this incremental process with patience and determination is the only

way in which gay and lesbian couples will eventually achieve equality. Every

gay and lesbian couple in a long-term union in Boulder and surrounding areas can

join this process today. They can formalize and register their commitment at

the Boulder City Clerk's office in the Boulder Municipal Building, at Broadway

and Arapahoe.

Rick Cendo and Gary Hamner are the first couple registered as domestic partners