The Vermont Supreme Court was right to see through a lower court ruling that held onto a concept of marriage linked only to procreation and child rearing. Many married couples are childless, and many same-sex couples have adopted children; there is no reason to grant benefits to one group and deny them to the other.

There is no doubt that some Americans have deeply-held beliefs opposing the extension of legal benefits to same-sex couples. But as the Vermont court ruled, these beliefs should not be allowed to obscure society's duty to extend to same-sex couples the "common benefits and protections" that they deserve under the law. This distinction between the civil benefits of marriage and its religious or moral standing is the most compelling argument in favor of domestic partnership laws in response to conservatives' fears traditional marriage will be undercut.

Furthermore, laws pertaining to marriage have been revised several times during our country's history to reflect the nation's changing values. With the increasing visibility and acceptance of homosexuals and homosexual cohabitation, it only makes sense that our laws be changed to reflect changing mores.

Vermont's courage is to be applauded. We hope the state's legislature will have as much courage as its Supreme Court in extending due rights and privileges to a too long marginalized and disenfranchised group.