What image does Vermont bring to mind? Maple syrup, spectacular fall scenes and skiing in the Green Mountains are typically associated with this small New England state-the state where I was born and raised. It was at that time noted for its conservatism, and its citizens were known for family values.

Within the last several months, Vermont has made legal and social news in the United States, first with a Supreme Court ruling in December, followed by legislation introduced in and passed by the Vermont House in March.

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples were being discriminated against in the state, because they were denied the benefits provided to heterosexual married couples. The state legislature subsequently acted in a groundbreaking manner, choosing a course not taken by any other U.S. state, and created a "civil union" for same-sex couples.

The bill, which is expected to pass the Vermont Senate in April, was aptly dubbed "by far the most sweeping measure of its kind in U.S. history" by a supportive editorial in the Harvard Crimson, a Harvard University newspaper ("Vermont Decision Spurs Debate About Gay Marriage," U-Wire, March 20, 2000, p. 1, emphasis added throughout).

Exactly what this legislation has accomplished, and whether it is good or bad promises to be the subject of debates in and out of the courts and legislatures of the land for years to come.

Peg Byron, education director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (a gay advocacy group) heralded the legislation as "groundbreaking." She added, "I think it really sets a moral as well as a legislative example for the rest of the country" ("VT House OKs Civil Unions for Gays," AP Online via COMTEX, March 17, 2000).

Contrary voices include Roman Catholic Bishop Kenneth Angell, who said, "This bill is about a minority imposing [its] concept of morality upon the morality of the majority" (ibid.).

Another sharp criticism comes from Janet Parshall, spokesperson for the Family Research Council. "The Vermont House's vote...to allow homosexual partners to form 'civil unions' is nothing short of an endorsement of 'same-sex marriage,' " she said.

"In spite of the people's opposition to counterfeit marriage, the legislature has moved one step closer to giving the people just that. If it looks like marriage and smells like marriage, then it is marriage-regardless of how much syrupy language is used" ("Vermont Senate Should Reject Counterfeit Marriage, FRC Says," PRNewswire, March 17, 2000).

Resembles marriage in all respects

The civil union described in the proposed legislation certainly does sound like a marriage, entitling couples whose union has been "certified" by a justice of the peace, a judge or a member of the clergy to some 300 state benefits and privileges presently available only to married couples. Some of those benefits and privileges include:

 Property. Civil union partners would be entitled to joint title, transfer from one to the other on death and property transfer tax benefits-the same as married couples.

 Lawsuits. As with married couples, one in a civil union would be able to sue for the wrongful death of a partner, the emotional distress caused by a partner's death or injury, and loss of consortium caused by death or injury.

 Probate. Probate law and procedures related to spouses would apply to civil union partners.

 Adoption. Civil union partners would be entitled to all the protections and benefits available to heterosexual couples when adopting a child. (Current Vermont law already allows same-sex couples to adopt, but the proposed law would require that those in civil unions be treated as spouses.)

 Insurance. Civil union partners of state employees would be treated as spouses for insurance or continuing care contracts.

 Abuse. Partners in civil unions would qualify for various abuse programs as spouses.

 Discrimination. Laws prohibiting discrimination based on marital status would be applied to civil union couples.

 Compensation. Provisions and victims' compensation and workers' compensation related to spouses also would apply to civil union partners.

 Health care. Spousal rights in making medical decisions, and spousal privileges for hospital visitation and notification would be afforded to civil union partners.

 Testimony. As with spouses, partners in civil unions cannot be compelled to testify against one other.

 Taxes. Same-sex partners in a civil union would be entitled to file joint state tax returns, like a married couple. (Source: "Benefits of VT Civil Union Bill," AP, March 17, 2000.)

The civil unions could not be broken without going through Family Court proceedings! Although, using Ms. Parshall's words, civil unions "look like marriage and smell like marriage," many legislators who worked on the Vermont bill feel that they made a strong statement for traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage. A special amendment was added to the bill for that specific purpose, stating that the term marriage is preserved solely for the union of a man and a woman.

That satisfied few people. A supportive editorial in the Daily Targum, a Rutgers University newspaper, opined that the proposed civil unions "mirror heterosexual marriages and provide all the same rights and privileges. The unions will be everything that marriage is, [except] in name..." ("Winds of Change," U-Wire, March 20, 2000).

Calling the bill "the first step toward queer [the term preferred by many same-sex union advocates] equality," the same editorial said there was a long way to go still.

Legal minefield

That "long way to go" speaks to the social, moral and legal crisis that was only increased-not resolved-by the Vermont legislation. The so-called "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution guarantees in essence that each state will recognize the laws of other states. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state" (Article IV, Section 1).

In spite of this law, 30 U.S. states have enacted legislation to deny recognition to same-sex partners whose unions are legally recognized in another state. Challenges in the courts on constitutional grounds are inevitable.

Although Vermont authorities have already warned couples not to come there from out-of-state to obtain a civil union, expecting to return home and have that union legally recognized, you can count on the fact that some will do exactly that in order to mount a legal challenge.

The United States is not alone in the debate. Although without the authority to pass binding legislation, the EU Parliament recently adopted a resolution that urges its 15 member nations to grant same-sex couples rights equal to those of heterosexual couples. The resolution called on its member nations to "guarantee one-parent families, unmarried couples and same-sex couples rights equal to those enjoyed by traditional couples and families, particularly as regards tax law, pecuniary rights and social rights" ("EU Urges Gay Couple Equal Rights," AP, March 17, 2000).

Denmark, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands already have laws guaranteeing those benefits to extramarital couples regardless of gender. Other EU member parliaments are currently debating the question.

The Canadian federal government has proposed Bill C-23 that will give same-sex couples the benefits and obligations of common-law couples. The Canadian debate is a mirror image of the U.S. arguments.

Responding to a firestorm of public protest, Justice Minister Anne McClellan agreed to amend the legislation to say that the proposed law would not affect the institution of marriage. Similar to the amendment added to the Vermont bill, the proposed Canadian law stipulates that the word marriage means "the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" ("Commons Committee Votes to Accept Amendment to Include," CP, March 23, 2000).

Again, similar to their U.S. counterparts, gay and lesbian advocates strongly object to the amendment. What they seek is not just benefits, but legitimacy.

Incredulity at widespread support

The Family Research Council's spokesperson asked a probing question, "Why does the Vermont House seem more in tune with an intimidating, but small minority of homosexual activists than their own people?" (op. cit., PRNewswire). Indeed, why are nations throughout the Western world willing-even anxious to extend marital benefits to same-sex couples at the same time as they deny that they are undermining traditional marriage? Are people so consumed with wanting to "be fair" that they are blinded to the consequences of their actions?

Far from bringing resolution to complex issues, recent legislative actions in Vermont, Canada and the EU have opened a Pandora's box of argument and debate unlikely to be resolved this side of the Kingdom of God. Again, why have so many been willing to sign on to this trend? I have a theory.

I'll allow the editorial of the Daily Targum about the Vermont bill, quoted above, to explain it. "The queer couples will be married by law, receiving their just legal rights. [Obviously, the writer sees the Vermont civil union as a marriage, which undoubtedly shows how many will interpret it.] In the eyes of the church, they will remain unrecognized. The bill smartly sidesteps the moral question in this respect.... They are recognizing them as civil unions-they are partners in the eyes of the law, but not in the church."

Read "God" for "the church."

In my opinion, the "creative legislation" of Vermont and Canada has attempted to create marriage without God. I believe that this approach will have wide appeal among people of all moral persuasions. I am reminded of the apostle Paul's observation of people who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28), and I believe that assessment is applicable to today's society.

Not that all people want life without God, mind you. I see most as wanting a kind, merciful and generous God, but one who keeps any strict opinions to Himself, a "nonjudgmental Judge." For that reason, because most people do not want the real God in their everyday lives, I predict that this "novel" approach to same-sex unions-marriage that is not a marriage-will grow in popularity. Because traditional marriage (properly) reminds people too much of the real God and His Word, I predict that heterosexual couples will begin to ask for this type of certification-a civil union over a traditional marriage.

Distancing themselves from God

In another time, another people organized their society so that God would not "interfere," would not prohibit them from exercising their "rights." Their society was symbolized by a tower that, to them, meant freedom from God. The citizens became passionately unified in their desire to shut God out. He could not force His opinion or His will on them, they reasoned.

So God came down to visit them, we are told in the Scriptures, to see their society and their tower firsthand. He found them unified all right, but unity is not always good-a reality lost upon many, so it seems. What their single-mindedness accomplished was fast-tracking their own corruption in the name of "freedom." You can read of this watershed event in Genesis 11. You know the construction project. It's called the tower of Babel.

Now people are constructing a legal, moral tower of Babel to guarantee equality that they do not believe they would receive from living by God's Word. There is a growing unity to shut Him out.

What would God say if He came down to visit this tower firsthand? We haven't long to wait to learn the answer to that question. WNP