744 A.2d 864 (1999)

Stan BAKER, et al.
v.
STATE of Vermont, et al.

No. 98-032.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

December 20, 1999.

*866 Beth Robinson and Susan M. Murray of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, and Mary Bonauto, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Boston, Massachusetts, for Plaintiff-Appellants.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Eve Jacobs-Carnahan and Timothy Tomasi, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee State.

Timothy M. Eustace of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., Burlington, for Defendants-Appellees Town of Shelburne and City of South Burlington.

Gregg H. Wilson of Kolvoord, Overton & Wilson, Essex Junction, for Defendant-Appellee Town of Milton.

Harvey Golubock, Montpelier, for Amicus Curiae Vermont Human Rights Commission.

Richard T. Cassidy of Hoff, Curtis, Pacht, Cassidy & Frame, P.C., Burlington, and Evan Wolfson, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., and Lawson M. Vicario and S. Elizabeth Foster of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae Vermont Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights, et al.

David Rath of Kohn & Rath, Hinesburg, for Amicus Curiae Professors of Legislation and Statutory Interpretation.

Eileen M. Blackwood of Blackwood and Kraynak, P.C., Burlington, David Chambers, White River Junction, and Matthew Coles, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gay Men, et al.

Peter M. Lawrence of Barr, Sternberg & Moss, P.C., Bennington, for Amici Curiae Vermont Organization for Weddings of the Same-Gender, et al.

William M Dorsch and Beth A. Danon of Mickenberg, Dunn, Sirotkin & Dorsch, Burlington, for Amici Curiae Vermont NOW, et al.

Philip C. Woodward and Karen McAndrew of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for Amici Curiae Vermont Psychiatric Association, et al.

Hal Goldman, Burlington, for Amicus Curiae Take It To the People.

J. Paul Giuliani of McKee, Giuliani & Cleveland, Montpelier, and Dwight G. Duncan, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, for Amici Curiae New Journey, et al.

Robert H. Erdmann, South Burlington, Jay Alan Sekulow and John P. Tuskey, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Vincent P. McCarthy, New Milford, Connecticut, for *867 Amicus Curiae The American Center for Law and Justice.

Clarke A. Gravel of Gravel & Shea, Burlington, and Don Stenberg, Nebraska Attorney General, and L. Steven Grasz, Deputy Attorney General, Lincoln, Nebraska, for Amici Curiae State of Nebraska, et al.

Jon R. Eggleston, Burlington, for Amicus Curiae Professors of Law and Jurisprudence.

Duncan F. Kilmartin, Newport, and David R. Huggins, The National Legal Foundation, Memphis, Tennessee, for Amici Curiae Specialty Research Associates, et al.

William M. O'Brien, O'Brien Law Offices, Winooski, Thomas E. McCormick of McCormick Fitzpatrick Kasper & Burchard, Burlington, and Von G. Keetch and Alexander Dushku of Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Amici Curiae Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, et al.

John Fitzpatrick, Burlington, and David Zwiebel, New York, New York, for Amicus Curiae Agudath Israel of America.

Duncan F. Kilmartin of Rexford & Kilmartin, Newport, and Steven T. McFarland, Kimberlee W. Colby and Samuel B. Casey, Annandale, Virginia, for Amici Curiae Christian Legal Society, et al.

Timothy J. O'Connor, Jr., O'Connor Law Office, Brattleboro, and David Orgon Coolidge, The Catholic University of America, Washington, District of Columbia, for Amici Curiae Hon. Peter Brady, et al.

Present AMESTOY, C.J., and DOOLEY, MORSE, JOHNSON and SKOGLUND, JJ.

AMESTOY, C.J.

May the State of Vermont exclude same-sex couples from the benefits and protections that its laws provide to opposite-sex married couples? That is the fundamental question we address in this appeal, a question that the Court well knows arouses deeply-felt religious, moral, and political beliefs. Our constitutional responsibility to consider the legal merits of issues properly before us provides no exception for the controversial case. The issue before the Court, moreover, does not turn on the religious or moral debate over intimate same-sex relationships, but rather on the statutory and constitutional basis for the exclusion of same-sex couples from the secular benefits and protections offered married couples.

We conclude that under the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution, which, in pertinent part, reads,

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community. . . .

Vt. Const., ch. I, art 7., plaintiffs may not be deprived of the statutory benefits and protections afforded persons of the opposite sex who choose to marry. We hold that the State is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law. Whether this ultimately takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel "domestic partnership" system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature. Whatever system is chosen, however, must conform with the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and security of the law.

Plaintiffs are three same-sex couples who have lived together in committed relationships for periods ranging from four to twenty-five years. Two of the couples have raised children together. Each couple applied for a marriage license from their respective town clerk, and each was refused a license as ineligible under the applicable state marriage laws. Plaintiffs thereupon filed this lawsuit against defendants—the *868 State of Vermont, the Towns of Milton and Shelburne, and the City of South Burlington—seeking a declaratory judgment that the refusal to issue them a license violated the marriage statutes and the Vermont Constitution.

The State, joined by Shelburne and South Burlington, moved to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The Town of Milton answered the complaint and subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs opposed the motions and cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the State's and the Town of Milton's motions, denied plaintiffs' motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court ruled that the marriage statutes could not be construed to permit the issuance of a license to same-sex couples. The court further ruled that the marriage statutes were constitutional because they rationally furthered the State's interest in promoting "the link between procreation and child rearing." This appeal followed.^[1]

I. The Statutory Claim

Plaintiffs initially contend the trial court erred in concluding that the marriage statutes render them ineligible for a marriage license. It is axiomatic that the principal objective of statutory construction is to discern the legislative intent. See Merkel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 166 Vt. 311, 314, 693 A.2d 706, 707 (1997). While we may explore a variety of sources to discern that intent, it is also a truism of statutory interpretation that where a statute is unambiguous we rely on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words chosen. See In re P.S., 167 Vt. 63, 70, 702 A.2d 98, 102 (1997). "[W]e rely on the plain meaning of the words because we presume they reflect the Legislature's intent." Braun v. Board of Dental Examiners, 167 Vt. 110, 116, 702 A.2d 124, 127 (1997).

Vermont's marriage statutes are set forth in chapter 1 of Title 15, entitled "Marriage," which defines the requirements and eligibility for entering into a marriage, and chapter 105 of Title 18, entitled "Marriage Records and Licenses," which prescribes the forms and procedures for obtaining a license and solemnizing a marriage. Although it is not necessarily the only possible definition, there is no doubt that the plain and ordinary meaning of "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. See Webster's New International Dictionary 1506 (2d ed.1955) (marriage consists of state of "being united to a person ... of the opposite sex as husband or wife"); Black's Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed.1999) (marriage is "[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife"). This understanding of the term is well rooted in Vermont common law. See Le Barron v. Le Barron, 35 Vt. 365, 366-71 (1862) (petition by wife to annul marriage for alleged physical impotence of husband); Clark v. Field, 13 Vt. 460, 465 (1841) (suit to declare marriage null and void on ground that husband and wife had not consummated marriage); Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Newbury v. Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Brunswick, 2 Vt. 151, 152 (1829) (dispute between towns over liability for support of family turned, in part, on validity of marriage where justice of peace had not declared parties husband and wife). The legislative understanding is also reflected in the enabling statute governing *869 the issuance of marriage licenses, which provides, in part, that the license "shall be issued by the clerk of the town where either the bride or groom resides." 18 V.S.A. § 5131(a). "Bride" and "groom" are gender-specific terms. See Webster's, supra, at 334 (bride defined as "a woman newly married, or about to be married"; bridegroom defined as "a man newly married, or about to be married").

Further evidence of the legislative assumption that marriage consists of a union of opposite genders may be found in the consanguinity statutes, which expressly prohibit a man from marrying certain female relatives, see 15 V.S.A. § 1, and a woman from marrying certain male relatives, see id. § 2. In addition, the annulment statutes explicitly refer to "husband and wife," see id. § 513, as do other statutes relating to married couples. See, e.g., 12 V.S.A. § 1605 ("husband and wife" may not testify about communications to each other under rule commonly known as "marital privilege," see State v. Wright, 154 Vt. 512, 525, 581 A.2d 720, 728 (1989)); 14 V.S.A. §§ 461, 465, 470 (referring to interest of "widow" in estate of her "husband"); id. § 10 (requiring three witnesses where "husband or wife" are given beneficial interest in other's will); 15 V.S.A. § 102 (legal protections where "married man ... deserts, neglects or abandons his wife").

These statutes, read as a whole, reflect the common understanding that marriage under Vermont law consists of a union between a man and a woman. Plaintiffs essentially concede this fact. They argue, nevertheless, that the underlying purpose of marriage is to protect and encourage the union of committed couples and that, absent an explicit legislative prohibition, the statutes should be interpreted broadly to include committed same-sex couples. Plaintiffs rely principally on our decision in In re B.L.V.B., 160 Vt. 368, 369, 628 A.2d 1271, 1272 (1993). There, we held that a woman who was co-parenting the two children of her same-sex partner could adopt the children without terminating the natural mother's parental rights. Although the statute provided generally that an adoption deprived the natural parents of their legal rights, it contained an exception where the adoption was by the "spouse" of the natural parent. See id. at 370, 628 A.2d at 1273 (citing 15 V.S.A. § 448). Technically, therefore, the exception was inapplicable. We concluded, however, that the purpose of the law was not to restrict the exception to legally married couples, but to safeguard the child, and that to apply the literal language of the statute in these circumstances would defeat the statutory purpose and "reach an absurd result." Id. at 371, 628 A.2d at 1273. Although the Legislature had undoubtedly not even considered same-sex unions when the law was enacted in 1945, our interpretation was consistent with its "general intent and spirit." Id. at 373, 628 A.2d at 1274.

Contrary to plaintiffs' claim, B.L.V.B. does not control our conclusion here. We are not dealing in this case with a narrow statutory exception requiring a broader reading than its literal words would permit in order to avoid a result plainly at odds with the legislative purpose. Unlike B.L.V.B., it is far from clear that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Legislature's "intent and spirit." Rather, the evidence demonstrates a clear legislative assumption that marriage under our statutory scheme consists of a union between a man and a woman. Accordingly, we reject plaintiffs' claim that they were entitled to a license under the statutory scheme governing marriage.

II. The Constitutional Claim

Assuming that the marriage statutes preclude their eligibility for a marriage license, plaintiffs contend that the exclusion violates their right to the common benefit and protection of the law guaranteed by Chapter I, Article 7 of the Vermont *870 Constitution.^[2] They note that in denying them access to a civil marriage license, the law effectively excludes them from a broad array of legal benefits and protections incident to the marital relation, including access to a spouse's medical, life, and disability insurance, hospital visitation and other medical decisionmaking privileges, spousal support, intestate succession, homestead protections, and many other statutory protections. They claim the trial court erred in upholding the law on the basis that it reasonably served the State's interest in promoting the "link between procreation and child rearing." They argue that the large number of married couples without children, and the increasing incidence of same-sex couples with children, undermines the State's rationale. They note that Vermont law affirmatively guarantees the right to adopt and raise children regardless of the sex of the parents, see 15A V.S.A. § 1-102, and challenge the logic of a legislative scheme that recognizes the rights of same-sex partners as parents, yet denies them—and their children—the same security as spouses.

In considering this issue, it is important to emphasize at the outset that it is the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution we are construing, rather than its counterpart, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do so. Vermont's constitutional commitment to equal rights was the product of the successful effort to create an independent republic and a fundamental charter of government, the Constitution of 1777, both of which preceded the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment by nearly a century. As we explained in State v. Badger, 141 Vt. 430, 448-49, 450 A.2d 336, 347 (1982), "our constitution is not a mere reflection of the federal charter. Historically and textually, it differs from the United States Constitution. It predates the federal counterpart, as it extends back to Vermont's days as an independent republic. It is an independent authority, and Vermont's fundamental law."

As we explain in the discussion that follows, the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution differs markedly from the federal Equal Protection Clause in its language, historical origins, purpose, and development. While the federal amendment may thus supplement the protections afforded by the Common Benefits Clause, it does not supplant it as the first and primary safeguard of the rights and liberties of all Vermonters. See id. at 449, 450 A.2d at 347 (Court is free to "provide more generous protection to rights under the Vermont Constitution than afforded by the federal charter"); State v. Jewett, 146 Vt. 221, 224, 500 A.2d 233, 235 (1985) (state constitution may protect Vermonters "however the philosophy of the United States Supreme Court may ebb and flow"); see generally H. Linde, First Things First, Rediscovering the States' Bill of Rights, 9 U. Balt. L.Rev. 379, 381-82 (1980); S. Pollock, State Constitutions as Separate Sources of Fundamental Rights, 35 Rutgers L.Rev. 707, 717-19 (1983).

A. Historical Development

In understanding the import of the Common Benefits Clause, this Court has often referred to principles developed by the federal courts in applying the Equal Protection Clause.^[3] See, e.g., Choquette v. *871 Perrault, 153 Vt. 45, 51-52, 569 A.2d 455, 458-59 (1989). At the same time, however, we have recognized that "[a]lthough the provisions have some similarity of purpose, they are not identical." Benning v. State, 161 Vt. 472, 485 n. 7, 641 A.2d 757, 764 n. 7 (1994). Indeed, recent Vermont decisions reflect a very different approach from current federal jurisprudence. That approach may be described as broadly deferential to the legislative prerogative to define and advance governmental ends, while vigorously ensuring that the means chosen bear a just and reasonable relation to the governmental objective.

Although our decisions over the last few decades have routinely invoked the rhetoric of suspect class favored by the federal courts, see, e.g., Choquette, 153 Vt. at 51, 569 A.2d at 458, there are notable exceptions. The principal decision in this regard is the landmark case of State v. Ludlow Supermarkets, Inc., 141 Vt. 261, 448 A.2d 791 (1982). There, Chief Justice Albert Barney, writing for the Court, invalidated a Sunday closing law that discriminated among classes of commercial establishments on the basis of their size. After noting that this Court, unlike its federal counterpart, was not constrained by considerations of federalism and the impact of its decision on fifty varying jurisdictions, the Court declared that Article 7 "only allows the statutory classifications. . . if a case of necessity can be established overriding the prohibition of Article 7 by reference to the `common benefit, protection, and security of the people.'" Id. at 268, 448 A.2d at 795. Applying this test, the Court concluded that the State's justifications for the disparate treatment of large and small businesses failed to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Id. at 269-70, 448 A.2d at 796.

Ludlow, as we later explained, did not alter the traditional requirement under Article 7 that legislative classifications must "reasonably relate to a legitimate public purpose." Choquette, 153 Vt. at 52, 569 A.2d at 459. Nor did it overturn the principle that the justifications demanded of the State may depend upon the nature and importance of the benefits and protections affected by the legislation; indeed, this is implicit in the weighing process. It did establish that Article 7 would require a "more stringent" reasonableness inquiry than was generally associated with rational basis review under the federal constitution. State v. Brunelle, 148 Vt. 347, 351, 534 A.2d 198, 201-02 (1987); see also Hodgeman v. Jard Co., 157 Vt. 461, 464, 599 A.2d 1371, 1373 (1991) (citing Ludlow for principle that Article 7 "may require this Court to examine more closely distinctions drawn by state government than would the Fourteenth Amendment"). Ludlow did not *872 override the traditional deference accorded legislation having any reasonable relation to a legitimate public purpose. It simply signaled that Vermont courts—having "access to specific legislative history and all other proper resources" to evaluate the object and effect of state laws—would engage in a meaningful, case-specific analysis to ensure that any exclusion from the general benefit and protection of the law would bear a just and reasonable relation to the legislative goals. Ludlow, 141 Vt. at 268, 448 A.2d at 795.^[4]

Although it is accurate to point out that since Ludlow our decisions have consistently recited the federal rational-basis/strict-scrutiny tests, it is equally fair to observe that we have been less than consistent in their application. Just as commentators have noted the United States Supreme Court's obvious yet unstated deviations from the rational-basis standard, so have this Court's holdings often departed from the federal test.^[5] In Colchester Fire District No. 2 v. Sharrow, 145 Vt. 195, 198-99, 485 A.2d 134, 136-37 (1984), for example, the Court ostensibly applied a rational-basis test to invalidate a payment scheme for revenue-bond assessments. While acknowledging the broad discretion traditionally accorded the Legislature in taxation and other areas of public welfare, the Court nevertheless examined each of the district's rationales in detail and found them to be unpersuasive in light of the record and administrative experience. See id. at 200-01, 485 A.2d at 137 (record established no "plausible relationship between the method of bond assessment and its alleged purposes").

In Choquette, 153 Vt. at 51, 569 A.2d at 458, the Court again purported to apply *873 rational-basis review under Article 7 in holding a fence-repair statute to be unconstitutional. Not content to accept arguments derived from a bygone agricultural era, the Court held that the policies underlying the law were outdated and failed to establish a reasonable relation to the public purpose in the light of contemporary circumstances. See id. at 53-54, 569 A.2d at 459-60; see also Oxx v. Department of Taxes, 159 Vt. 371, 376, 618 A.2d 1321, 1324 (1992) (income tax assessment violated Equal Protection and Common Benefits Clauses as applied); Lorrain v. Ryan, 160 Vt. 202, 215, 628 A.2d 543, 551 (1993) (statutory scheme denying right of spouse of injured worker to sue third-party tortfeasor for loss of consortium violated Equal Protection and Common Benefits Clauses).

The "more stringent" test was also implicit in our recent decision in MacCallum v. Seymour's Administrator, 165 Vt. 452, 686 A.2d 935 (1996), which involved an Article 7 challenge to an intestacy statute that denied an adopted person's right of inheritance from collateral kin. While employing the rhetoric of minimal scrutiny, our analysis was more rigorous than traditional federal rational-basis review. Indeed, although the State proffered at least a conceivable purpose for the legislative distinction between natural and adopted children, we held that the classification was unreasonable, explaining that "[a]dopted persons have historically been a target of discrimination," id. at 459, 686 A.2d at 939, and that however reasonable the classification when originally enacted, it represented an "outdated" distinction today. Id. at 460, 686 A.2d at 939. Thus, while deferential to the historical purpose underlying the classification, we demanded that it bear a reasonable and just relation to the governmental objective in light of contemporary conditions.

This approach may also be discerned in the Court's recent opinion in Brigham v. State, 166 Vt. 246, 692 A.2d 384 (1997), addressing an Article 7 challenge to the State's educational funding system. Consistent with prior decisions, the Court acknowledged the federal standard, see id. at 265, 692 A.2d at 395, even as it eschewed the federal categories of analysis. Indeed, after weighing the State's justifications for the disparate funding of education against its impact upon public-school students, the Court concluded: "Labels aside, we are simply unable to fathom a legitimate governmental purpose to justify the gross inequities in educational opportunities evident from the record." Id. at 265, 692 A.2d at 396.

Thus, "labels aside," Vermont case law has consistently demanded in practice that statutory exclusions from publicly-conferred benefits and protections must be "premised on an appropriate and overriding public interest." Ludlow, 141 Vt. at 268, 448 A.2d at 795. The rigid categories utilized by the federal courts under the Fourteenth Amendment find no support in our early case law and, while routinely cited, are often effectively ignored in our more recent decisions. As discussed more fully below, these decisions are consistent with the text and history of the Common Benefits Clause which, similarly, yield no rigid categories or formulas of analysis. The balancing approach utilized in Ludlow and implicit in our recent decisions reflects the language, history, and values at the core of the Common Benefits Clause. We turn, accordingly, to a brief examination of constitutional language and history.

B. Text

We typically look to a variety of sources in construing our Constitution, including the language of the provision in question, historical context, case-law development, the construction of similar provisions in other state constitutions, and sociological materials. See Benning, 161 Vt. at 476, 641 A.2d at 759. The Vermont Constitution was adopted with little recorded debate and has undergone remarkably little revision in its 200-year history. Recapturing the meaning of a particular *874 word or phrase as understood by a generation more than two centuries removed from our own requires, in some respects, an immersion in the culture and materials of the past more suited to the work of professional historians than courts and lawyers. See generally H. Powell, Rules for Originalists, 73 Va. L.Rev. 659, 659-61 (1987); P. Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 B.U. L.Rev. 204, 204-09 (1980). The responsibility of the Court, however, is distinct from that of the historian, whose interpretation of past thought and actions necessarily informs our analysis of current issues but cannot alone resolve them. See Powell, supra, at 662-68; Brest, supra, at 237. As we observed in State v. Kirchoff, 156 Vt. 1, 6, 587 A.2d 988, 992 (1991), "our duty is to discover ... the core value that gave life to Article [7]." (Emphasis added.) Out of the shifting and complicated kaleidoscope of events, social forces, and ideas that culminated in the Vermont Constitution of 1777, our task is to distill the essence, the motivating ideal of the framers. The challenge is to remain faithful to that historical ideal, while addressing contemporary issues that the framers undoubtedly could never have imagined.

We first focus on the words of the Constitution themselves, for, as Chief Justice Marshall observed, "although the spirit of an instrument, especially of a constitution, is to be respected not less than its letter, yet the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words." Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 202, 4 L.Ed. 529 (1819). One of the fundamental rights included in Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution of 1777, entitled "A Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont," the Common Benefits Clause as originally written provided:

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family or set of men, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right, to reform, alter or abolish government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.

Vt. Const. of 1777, ch. I, art. VI.^[6]

The first point to be observed about the text is the affirmative and unequivocal mandate of the first section, providing that government is established for the common benefit of the people and community as a whole. Unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, whose origin and language reflect the solicitude of a dominant white society for an historically-oppressed African-American minority (no state shall "deny" the equal protection of the laws), the Common Benefits Clause mirrors the confidence of a homogeneous, eighteenth-century group of men aggressively laying claim to the same rights as their peers in Great Britain or, for that matter, New York, New Hampshire, or the Upper Connecticut River Valley. See F. Mahady, Toward a Theory of State Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Judge's Thoughts, 13 Vt. L.Rev. 145, 151-52 (1988) (noting distinct eighteenth-century origins of Article 7). The same assumption that all the people should be afforded all the benefits and protections bestowed by government is also reflected in the second section, which prohibits not the denial of rights to the oppressed, but rather the conferral of advantages or emoluments upon the privileged.^[7]

*875 The words of the Common Benefits Clause are revealing. While they do not, to be sure, set forth a fully-formed standard of analysis for determining the constitutionality of a given statute, they do express broad principles which usefully inform that analysis. Chief among these is the principle of inclusion. As explained more fully in the discussion that follows, the specific proscription against governmental favoritism toward not only groups or "set[s] of men," but also toward any particular "family" or "single man," underscores the framers' resentment of political preference of any kind. The affirmative right to the "common benefits and protections" of government and the corollary proscription of favoritism in the distribution of public "emoluments and advantages" reflect the framers' overarching objective "not only that everyone enjoy equality before the law or have an equal voice in government but also that everyone have an equal share in the fruits of the common enterprise." W. Adams, The First American Constitutions 188 (1980) (emphasis added). Thus, at its core the Common Benefits Clause expressed a vision of government that afforded every Vermonter its benefit and protection and provided no Vermonter particular advantage.

C. Historical Context

Although historical research yields little direct evidence of the framers' intentions, an examination of the ideological origins of the Common Benefits Clause casts a useful light upon the inclusionary principle at its textual core. Like other provisions of the Vermont Constitution of 1777, the Common Benefits Clause was borrowed verbatim from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, which was based, in turn, upon a similar provision in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776. See J. Shaeffer, A Comparison of the First Constitutions of Vermont and Pennsylvania, 43 Vt. Hist. 33, 33-35 (1975); J. Selsam, The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776: A Study in Revolutionary Democracy 178 (1936). The original Virginia clause differed from the Pennsylvania and Vermont provisions only in the second section, which was contained in a separate article and provided "[t]hat no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services." See Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. IV (reprinted in 11 West's Encyclopedia of American Law 82 (1998)).^[8]

Although aimed at Great Britain, the American Revolution—as numerous historians have noted—also tapped deep-seated domestic antagonisms. The planter elite in Virginia, the proprietors of Eastern Pennsylvania, and New Yorkers claiming Vermont lands were each the object of long-standing grievances. Selsam, supra, at 255-56; R. Shalhope, Bennington and the Green Mountain Boys: The Emergence of Liberal Democracy in Vermont, 1760-1850 at 70-97 (1996); G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 at 75-82 (1969). Indeed, the revolt against Great Britain unleashed what one historian, speaking of Pennsylvania, has called "a revolution within a revolution." Selsam, supra, at 1. By attempting to claim equal rights for Americans against the English, regardless of birthright or social status, "even the most aristocratic of *876 southern Whig planters ... were pushed into creating an egalitarian ideology that could be and even as early as 1776 was being turned against themselves." Wood, supra, at 83. While not opposed to the concept of a social elite, the framers of the first state constitutions believed that it should consist of a "natural aristocracy" of talent, rather than an entrenched clique favored by birth or social connections. See id. at 479-80. As the preeminent historian of the ideological origins of the Revolution explained, "while `equality before the law' was a commonplace of the time, `equality without respect to the dignity of the persons concerned' was not; [the Revolution's] emphasis on social equivalence was significant." B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 307 (1967). Thus, while the framers' "egalitarian ideology" conspicuously excluded many oppressed people of the eighteenth century—including African-Americans, Native Americans, and women—it did nevertheless represent a genuine social revolt pitting republican ideals of "virtue," or talent and merit, against a perceived aristocracy of privilege both abroad and at home.

Vermont was not immune to the disruptive forces unleased by the Revolution. One historian has described Vermont on the eve of the Revolution as rife with "factional rivalry [and] regional jealousy." G. Aichele, Making the Vermont Constitution: 1777-1824, 56 Vt. Hist. 166, 177 (1988). Competing factions in the Champlain and Upper Connecticut River Valleys had long vied for political and economic dominance. See id. at 180. Echoing Selsam on Pennsylvania, another historian has spoken of "Vermont's double revolution—a rebellion within a rebellion" to describe the successful revolt against both Great Britain and New York by the yeoman farmers, small-scale proprietors, and moderate land speculators who comprised the bulk of the Green Mountain Boys. D. Smith, Green Mountain Insurgency: Transformation of New York's Forty-Year Land War, 64 Vt. Hist. 197, 197-98, 224 (1996); see also Shalhope, supra, at 169 (egalitarian ideology of American Revolution "resonated powerfully with the visceral feelings" of Green Mountain Boys and others in Vermont).

The powerful movement for "social equivalence" unleashed by the Revolution ultimately found its most complete expression in the first state constitutions adopted in the early years of the rebellion. In Pennsylvania, where social antagonisms were most acute, the result was a fundamental charter that has been described as "the most radical constitution of the Revolution." Wood, supra, at 84-85; see also Shaeffer, supra, at 35-36. Yet the Pennsylvania Constitution's egalitarianism was arguably eclipsed the following year by the Vermont Constitution of 1777. In addition to the commitment to government for the "common benefit, protection, and security," it contained novel provisions abolishing slavery, eliminating property qualifications for voting, and calling for the governor, lieutenant governor, and twelve councilors to be elected by the people rather than appointed by the legislature. See Shalhope, supra, at 171-72. These and other provisions have led one historian to observe that Vermont's first charter was the "most democratic constitution produced by any of the American states." See id. at 172.

The historical origins of the Vermont Constitution thus reveal that the framers, although enlightened for their day, were not principally concerned with civil rights for African-Americans and other minorities, but with equal a