Editing Baker v. Vermont (section)

==Later developments==
In 2000, the Legislature responded to the ''Baker'' decision by instituting [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|civil unions for same-sex couples]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Boston.com / News / Local / Mass. / 10 years' work led to historic win in court |url=http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/23/10_years_work_led_to_historic_win_in_court/ |access-date=2023-02-01 |website=archive.boston.com |language=en}}</ref> after an acrimonious and deeply polarizing debate. The legislation, which took effect on July 1,  also defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, an explicit statement previously not found in Vermont's marriage licensing statute. In response to the court's decision in ''Baker'' and the legislature's enactment of civil unions, opponents of the legal recognition of same-sex unions formed an opposition organization called [[Take Back Vermont]].

In the [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont#2000 elections and aftermath|elections that fall]], six incumbent legislators who supported civil unions lost in the September primaries, five Republicans and one Democrat.<ref>{{cite news|last=Higgins|first=Richard|title=Civil Union Backlask in Vt.|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8616050.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610060143/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8616050.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=June 10, 2014 |access-date=August 7, 2013|newspaper=Boston Globe|date=September 14, 2000}}</ref> In November another 11 civil union supporters lost their seats in the legislature.<ref>{{cite news|last=Marquard|first=Bryan K.|title=After Civil Unions, Can Vermont be Civil?|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8619616.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610055901/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8619616.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=June 10, 2014|access-date=August 9, 2013|newspaper=Boston Globe|date=November 12, 2000}}</ref> Exit polls showed voters were evenly split on the question of civil unions.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gay unions gain acceptance in Vt.|url=http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041108/NEWS/411080333/1002/NEWS01|access-date=August 8, 2013|newspaper=Barre-Montpelier Times Argus|date=November 8, 2004|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230253/http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20041108%2FNEWS%2F411080333%2F1002%2FNEWS01|archive-date=2013-12-02|url-status=dead}}</ref>

When [[GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders|GLAD]] filed a lawsuit seeking same-sex marriage rights in Massachusetts, Bonauto tried to avoid winning a decision like ''Baker'' by emphasizing the status of marriage rather than its particular legal benefits and obligations. She said: "We spent more time in Massachusetts talking about how marriage is a basic civil and human right. It cannot be splintered into state and federal protections. We talked about what marriage is in our culture."<ref>{{cite news|last=Abraham|first=Yvonne|title=10 Years' Work Led to Historic Win in Court|url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/23/10_years_work_led_to_historic_win_in_court/ |access-date=August 6, 2013|newspaper=Boston Globe|date=November 23, 2003}}</ref>

[[Supreme Court of New Jersey|New Jersey's highest court]] ruled unanimously in ''[[Lewis v. Harris]]'' on October 25, 2006, that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violated the [[Constitution of New Jersey|state constitution]]'s guarantee of equal protection. When the justices determined 4 to 3 that the appropriate remedy should be left to the legislature because "such change must come from the crucible of the democratic process", the ''[[The New York Times|New York Times]]'' said New Jersey "could be considered the new Vermont".<ref>{{cite news|last=Chen|first=David W.|title=New Jersey Court Backs Rights for Same-Sex Unions|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/nyregion/26marriagecnd.html|access-date=August 9, 2013|newspaper=New York Times|date=October 25, 2006}}</ref>

[[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|Vermont legalized same-sex marriage]] effective September 1, 2009. Civil unions entered into prior to September 1 continued to be recognized as civil unions unless the couple married.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sec.state.vt.us/Marriage_Equality_FAQs.pdf |title=New Marriage Equality Bill (Civil Marriage) Frequently Asked Questions |access-date=2013-12-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120526161514/http://www.sec.state.vt.us/Marriage_Equality_FAQs.pdf |archive-date=2012-05-26 |url-status=dead }}</ref>