House Approves Civil Rights

by Barbara Dozetos

After two long days of debate, Vermont’s House of Representatives voted on Mar. 16 to pass H847, the civil union bill drafted by the chamber’s judiciary committee.

It took more than 12 hours of speeches, explanations, and proposed changes to the bill through its crucial first day of debate. Late on March 15, House members voted 79 - 68 to keep the bill alive for another reading and a final vote.

One proposed amendment would have replaced the entire text of the bill with a plan to call a constitutional convention during to address the issue of the Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Vermont. This effort was defeated soundly. Many representatives expressed a fear that such a move would open up every part of the State’s constitution to change.

Another proposed amendment would have instituted a three-year process during which all of the benefits, rights and privileges of marriage would be examined separately and offered one by one, if deemed appropriate, to any two people otherwise ineligible for marriage.

The amendment’s author, Peg Flory, R-Pittsford, addressed member of both parties during caucuses held to discuss the bill. Flory told Democrats that the legal status of marriage was originally set up to protect the state financially – to define responsibilities of parents to their children and to each other, should problems arise. Her proposal, she said, “would take sexual activity out of the equation.”

Other lawmakers weren’t swayed. “I’m not talking about sexual activity,” said Rep. Ann Seibert, D-Norwich. She told Flory and the caucus that the issue before them was about civil rights, not sex.

During the floor debate on the amendment, Rep. John Edwards, R-Swanton, asked Flory, “Would you propose to legalize discrimination against anyone whose lifestyle you disagree with?”

Flory’s amendment failed, as opponents pointed out the unwieldy nature of the proposition and its failure to address the Supreme Court mandate. “This amendment doesn’t recognize the nature of commitment and love present in a same-gender relationship,” said Dean Corren, P-Burlington. “They are not the same as two elderly sisters who depend on one another.”

Beth Robinson (left), attorney for the plaintiffs in the Baker case, was present for both days of floor debate on H.847 in the House. Rep. Dean Corren, P-Burlington (right), sponsored an ammendment to the bill that would have altered existing marriage statutes to include gay and lesbian couples. His amendment was defeated. photo: Barbara Dozetos

Later in the day, as hundreds of supporters of equal rights for gays and lesbian gathered outside the building for a candlelight vigil, Corren offered an amendment that would have replaced the entire bill with language that would include gays and lesbians in marriage statutes. “The problem with this entire debate is the effort to define marriage,” said Corren. “You know marriage when you see it. Marriage is what married people do.”

As expected, Corren’s amendment was defeated soundly. In a public display of support for the legislation they had drafted, the entire membership of the Judiciary Committee voted against it, even though several of them have advocated for a bill that would do exactly what Corren proposed.

Over the course of the evening, legislators stood up to deliver their views on what they all agreed was the most difficult issue any of them had faced in their political careers.

Rep. Francis Brooks, D-Montpelier, (left) delivered a moving speech during the first day of the debate. Virginia Renfrew (right) is one of the lobbyists working for the passage of the civil union bill. photo: Maxwell Stroud

Rep. Francis Brooks, D-Montpelier, responded to complaints from several members that the legislature had been placed in this difficult situation at the whim of only five people – the Supreme Court. “Hallelujah for just five people or just nine people,” he said, referring to the United States Supreme Court. He said he was personally for the people who have said we can’t deny rights to people because they are different.

“Please consider the human beings you have decided to place a stigma on,” said Brooks to colleagues who would vote against the civil union bill. “Please do what has made me proud to say I am a member here.”

“I’m here to tell you that gay and lesbian people and gay and lesbian couples deserve not only rights, they deserve to be celebrated,” said Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg. “Our lives, in the midst of historic prejudice and historic discrimination, are to my view, in some ways, miracles.”

The impassioned extemporaneous speech by the General Assembly’s only openly gay member brought tears to many eyes and inspired fellow legislators to move that the entire address be recorded in the House Journal, a rare occurrence. Struggling with his own emotions as he pleaded with colleagues to vote for the bill.

“We’re not a threat to your communities,” Lippert said. “We are an asset. We deserve to be welcomed, because we are your neighbors; we are your friends; indeed, we are your family.” ( See page 18 for the full text of Lippert’s speech.)

A loud cheer rose from the crowd of several hundred outside the doors of the House when the 79 to 68 vote was announced around 10 pm. When spectators inside the room joined in, the breach of decorum led the usually easy-going Speaker of the House, Michael Obuchowski, D-Rockingham, to slam his gavel on the podium hard enough to cause the mallet’s head to fly off and land in the front row of legislators – narrowly missing Rep. Oreste Valsangiacomo, D-Montpelier.

Although, supporters of the bill were celebratory after the vote, they cautioned that the following day would bring much more debate and several more attempts to dilute the bill by amendment.

As predicted, the battle resumed on March 16., but it started on a light-hearted note when Valsangiacomo appeared in his seat wearing a hard hat that read “Gavel Guard.”

The joking quickly stopped when several representatives proposed versions of a Defense of Marriage Act to be attached to H.847. The House Judiciary Committee met with the leadership of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force for more than an hour in the early part of the day, discussing the need to concede to what they called “half a DOMA” in order to see the bill passed.

The findings of the legislation already contained language acknowledging that marriage statutes in Vermont, as they now exist, apply only to couples made up of a man and woman. However, in order to keep the votes of some House members who threatened to withdraw their support of the bill, the Judiciary committee agreed to add similar language to the body of the new statute. At the same time, the most unsavory half of the mini-DOMA, denial of recognition to same-gender marriages performed in other states was defeated.

The debate over same-gender unions in Vermont has been praised for its civility, but thanks to two lawmakers in particular, it threatened to grow ugly on the floor of the House.

Rep. Fred Maslack, R-Poultney, proposed an amendment that would require HIV testing for anyone seeking a civil union license. With his proposal, Maslack would prohibit an HIV positive person from entering into a civil union with a person who tested negative.

Lippert stood to call the proposal “the most offensive amendment I’ve ever heard offered on the floor.” He said he was both personally and professionally offended by the blatant disrespect in the suggestion. The only representative who sided with Maslack on the roll call vote was Nancy Sheltra, R-Derby.

Sheltra rose several times during the day to offer anti-gay rhetoric and statistics from the Family Research Council. She was interrupted at one point by another legislator, who asked the Speaker to keep the debate on the correct topic and civil. Diane Carmoli, D-Rutland City, said, “If members don’t approve of the tone and content of another member’s speech, we can leave.” That is precisely what she and about 20 others did the next time Sheltra took the floor.

It was after 6 pm when the final roll call vote took place – 76 to 69 in favor of sending the civil union bill to the Senate. This time, the crowd maintained its composure until Obuchowski gaveled the session to a close. Supporters then broke out in cheers, applause, and hugs.

“The fight isn’t over, yet,” said Judiciary Committee Chair Tom Little, R-Shelburne, in his usual role as the voice of reason amongst the revelers.

The bill has moved to the Senate’s judiciary committee for line-by-line scrutiny. Although Senate leadership supports the legislation, it’s unlikely it will pass the Senate in exactly the same form it goes in. The full Senate is expected to take the bill up in late April.

H.847, as currently written, would go into effect on September 1, 2000.