Bridget Asay, assistant Attorney General of Vermont, came to the University of Massachusetts to speak about the topic of same sex unions yesterday.

Asay spoke to a group of 15 students in a question and answer format, giving her personal views on the topic of civil unions. She explained that she had not come as a representative of Vermont but instead as an individual interested in discussing the topic with students.

She explained that, in Vermont, it was legal for same sex couples to obtain the same legal rights as married couples under the term civil unions. These rights include insurance when it falls under the state’s jurisdiction. This is the only decision of its kind in the country. The decision occurred following a same sex couple’s petition for a marriage license.

“That, in turn, resulted in a decision by the Supreme Court, the only decision upheld in the country,” Asay said. “Under the Vermont Constitution these people had the right for the benefits and protections that go along with marriage. They stopped short of issuing a marriage license. They did not give them a marriage license but they did find a constitutional violation.”

Following the decision, there have been over 2,000 civil unions in the state of Vermont and there have also been attempts by the legislature to overturn the decision based upon values and the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.

“The court recognized that the framers of the Constitution never thought that it would extend as far as this issue,” Asay explained. “The court said that the only decision before them was to decide whether or not to allow same sex couples the benefits that having a marriage certificate brings.”

According to Asay, there was debate surrounding same sex marriages when the issue went to the Vermont legislature.

“The state essentially argued that marriage was between a man and a woman,” she said. “They also argued that the state had an interest in promoting a link between procreation and child bearing.”

The only two other states to attempt to legalize same sex unions were Hawaii and Alaska. In both states the voters overturned the decision.

“Hawaii made much more explicit arguments in that gay people should not be raising children,” she said. “Vermont did not make that argument because the state had legalized same-sex adoptions so that would be going against already existing policy.”

Although that may not have been the way that the state of Hawaii wanted the legislation to go, they could not change it once the vote was in place.

“Once the constitution was changed, Hawaii couldn’t do anything about it,” Asay said. “The people of Hawaii decided by popular vote to overturn it.”

Some of the students in the audience thought that Vermont did not go far enough and instead should have allowed for same sex marriages instead.

“I think that they backed down and did all of this PC civil unions garbage,” one student in the audience said.

The issue of social change and how that connects to law was also brought up during the lecture. Asay brought up the question as to whether or not law is responsible for bringing about social change. She compared the current situation of the rights of same sex couples to that of the civil rights movement. She asked students to think about that in terms of social change.

“Some people would argue that the courts changed public opinion,” she said. “Not that the court was so far ahead of their time but that they change the people’s opinion.”