Ken: I'm trying to set up a web site that will make people in Vermont have a better opinion of the [Civil Union] law. We don't have much hope because, as you mentioned in your article, opinions seem pretty thoroughly set. If logic and reason can prevail, we want to do our part. This interview will hopefully give people cause to view this as simply another "marriage" kind of thing. Your article mentioned that you'd already been through a ceremony and that you'd been together for some fifteen years. There doesn't seem to be a legal reason for you to go through another ceremony in Vermont, too. You seem to be as "married" as you can be. My first question is, "Why would you go to Vermont and get another ceremony?" Laurie: One, to participate in the historical aspect of it and be part of making history. And secondly, we don't believe that you can reaffirm your vows too many times. We reaffirm our vows every year. We have a ceremony that developed over the years for that. This was just too extraordinary an opportunity to go to Vermont and participate in making history and, at the same time, celebrate our fifteenth year together. Ken: That certainly sounds like a reasonable reason to me... You've been together for a long time. I was curious as to what steps you'd taken to get the effective benefits of marriage under the law in California. Laurie: We've done the things that you can do and gone as far as you can go. In terms of hiring a lawyer, filling out forms, making wills, medical power of attorney, durable power of attorney so that we can act on behalf of one another, but, in actuality, you cannot duplicate many of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage with a lawyer. It's just... it's not possible. Marriage gives you a certain legal standing in the law to take responsibility for one another and to stand for one another. In courts, it gives you preference in certain legal proceedings and when you're not recognized by the law — when your relationship is not recognized by the law — you're literally invisible. You don't exist. As we've said out here in California, we're "strangers in the eyes of the law." That's just not the way it should be. I think society is at a point where it is asking people to take responsibility for one another, and that's what we want to do. I want to be there for my partner and take full and complete responsibility for her... And we do that. The state actually gets in our way by not recognizing our relationship. Ken: Are you each other's heirs? Laurie: Well yes, yes. In terms of the wills and things like that we've set apart, yes. We're set down, yes. Ken: On a different note, when you were in Vermont, you mentioned in your article that the clerk was very cheerful and business-like. My buddy who lives there tells me that the town clerk who lives in her area of Vermont has resigned over this issue. Obviously, you can't do anything but speculate, but if you'd gone to a town clerk and the town clerk had either refused or... something else, how would that have made you feel? Laurie: It would have made us feel really horrid. We actually got a list of town clerks and did some calling around because even though we might be activists in terms of wanting to see pro-active laws like this put into place, when it comes time for a personal ceremony like this, that's not when you want to be getting into a confrontation with somebody. (laughing) At least, that's not what we wanted to do. We wanted to go to Vermont and have a special ceremony and be in a situation where it was enjoyable and something that all parties found worthy. That's what we found. It was really, really wonderful. If we hadn't found that, we probably would have continued looking. I know that there are folks working in Vermont to try to work with clerks that are undecided and trying to bridge some gaps that might be there, but, you know the thing you mentioned that there are people whose opinions are already made up...? I guess that I'm an optimist and I think that we should "keep the doors open" to dialogue and reason. I think there's a lot of people who don't know what to think and don't know what to expect. Maybe they're expecting the worst, and when that doesn't happen, that will open their minds a little further.I think potentially the majority of the people in Vermont will see the law as a good thing. Ken: My buddy who lives up there... One time I said something about "try to influence those whose opinions aren't throroughly set." She replied to me that everyone in Vermont had an opinion. (laughter) I answered back, "Well, everyone might have an opinion, but hopefully there are those who can be influenced—no matter their opinion of this—to set it aside and just be a "good person." Or not set it aside and be a good person. I don't think that a majority are against it, but I think that there are a lot of people who haven't decided how they want to respond to this. Laurie: For example, we met an older couple who'd been born and bred in Vermont and come from a very conservative church and a very conservative background. Their minds were not only made up about the law, but also completely made up that homosexual relationships are sinful and not of the Bible. That was on day one. By day five, we had engaged in several interesting and enlightenened discussions and their position is not as hard as they thought it was. They certainly saw a value to this that they had not seen before. They also discovered that some of the things that they'd been told about the law and about gays and lesbians were not true. For example, they'd been told that the only reason that people become gay or lesbian is because of some trauma that they suffered in their childhood. (laughing) That's just not true.So they had to look at some new things and it was very open with both sides listening. I think it takes a healthy dose of that, too. Ken: I agree. You mentioned in your article that the "gaydar" — "gay radar" — seemed to be a survival mechanism up there. This couple you talked about meeting over a five day period... I assume that they were somehow connected with the resort you were staying at. Laurie: Nearby, yes. Ken: But they weren't openly hostile... Were they? Laurie: No. No, but they were open about their dislike of the law. Ken: Did you meet anyone there who was openly hostile? Laurie: We ran into a little bit of that... Some shopkeepers who really didn't want to serve us. That kind of situation. Some startled looks in the grocery store, that kind of thing. But then other people who were wonderfully open, as well. What was really surprising was that, when we'd say that we were visiting the state capitol and we were here for the Civil Union, they got really excited and they wanted to show us the room where the desk was where the bill was signed... where the Supreme Court was at and tell us the stories. It was really quite touching. Ken: I glanced over the reasoning behind the Vermont Supreme Court's decision. Have you looked at that? Laurie: Yes, I have. Ken: Their constitution seems far more advanced than the Texas Constution where I live (laughter). Of course, we're on our third constitution and the radical republicans, when they came down here, messed things up so bad that we went in a big way in the opposite direction, but—even that aside—I had to admire that the Virginia Constitution gave things explicitly beyond that that was guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Laurie: It's really... The Vermont Constitution is an amazing document. I, myself, was quite surprised in how seriously Vermonters take their place in history and in the United States as a state that promotes freedom. The concepts there do go beyond the Constitution of the United States. I think Vermonters are justifiably proud of that. Ken: Do you have anything else to say about how the experience felt like to you? Laurie: My partner [Donna] summed it up the best when the clerk handed her the form to give to the Justice of the Peace and she said, "Thank you. You have no idea how incredible it is to be recognized as a human being." That really sums it up for me.