In search of a more perfect heteroarchy: Vermont, civil unions and the harm of "Separate-but-Equal"

This article focuses on the Vermont civil union solution to the state Supreme Court's mandate in Baker v. State (1999). Using non-subordination theory, the author argues that rather than being a legal victory for lesbians and gay men, the Vermont law integrally contributes to the maintenance of an imbalance of power between heterosexuals and lesbians and gays. The article analyzes the rhetorical strategy employed by lawmakers to respond to what they perceived and portrayed as a menace posed by same-sex marriage and demonstrates that lawmakers reinforced apprehensions surrounding lesbian and gay identity and asserted the familiar heterosexist narrative in an effort to quell the threat posed by Baker. The article concludes that the legislature's genuine motivation behind Civil unions was validating their own and their constituents' misplaced fears regarding gay and lesbian identity, and pacifying those fears by denying equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians in an attempt to appear responsive to a perceived threat to heterosexual primacy.