---

GOP House Control Changes Legislative Landscape

Although every pro-civil union statewide candidate in Vermont, including Gov. Howard Dean, was successful in the Nov. 7 elections, many say the state’s legislature has not seen the last of the issue.

With a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives and Democrats hanging on to a slim majority in the Senate, few observers believe the new biennium will pass without some attempt to adjust or repeal the controversial law.

Walter Freed, R-Dorset, minority leader in the House last session, is the most likely candidate for Speaker of the House. He voted against the civil union bill, but directed his caucus to vote their consciences, rather than bring the party’s pressure to bear on members who didn’t agree with him.

“I’d be naïve,” said Freed, “to think the issue won’t come up again.” He said too many people ran and won elections on the subject for it to go away completely. “It will be the business of the Judiciary Committee,” he said, “to handle it as they see fit.”

That committee, chaired last session by Tom Little, R-Shelburne, and its structure will be of great interest to civil union foes and supporters alike. Little’s leadership is credited with the authoring and passage of the bill. “Tom Little is a visionary with an incredible ability for consensus building,” said Mary Bonauto of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “He was a tireless advocate for civil rights.”

Freed wouldn’t say what his specific intentions were regarding the committee. “My personal agenda,” he said, “is to run the house in a fair, effective, responsible manner.” If he is elected to be Speaker, he said, “I’ll do my utmost to be bipartisan. The membership and chairs of the committees will reflect the make-up of the House.”

Some of his predecessors, Freed said, have stacked committees unfairly. “That is a disservice to the process,” he said. Asked for his opinion about the Judiciary committee’s work on the civil union bill last session, Freed said, “I think if, by the luck of the draw, there had been representatives on the committee against the issue, the process would have been fairer.”

In addition to moving ahead with the civil union legislation, the House Judiciary committee has been responsible for holding up action on a Defense of Marriage-like bill. A significant change in the committee’s membership could see a similar bill passed out to the floor for action in the coming session.

“I’m much less concerned about the committee’s views at the beginning of the session,” said Beth Robinson of the newly re-named Civil Union Defense Committee—formerly the Freedom to Marry Action Committee, “than their willingness to learn.” She said the civil union law passed last year due to the legislators’ ability to listen. “I’m hopeful that, if they’re inclined to revisit the issue,” said Robinson, “they will listen to the people“those who are affected by the law.”

Robinson wants to give the new legislature a chance to settle in before she makes any solid predictions about where things might go. “This whole election was about listening to Vermonters, and 60 percent of Vermonters voted for a pro-civil union governor,” said Robinson. “It is clear that there is not a mandate to muck with the law. If the legislature is serious about listening, then they should move on.”

The reaction to the election from outside Vermont, Bonauto said, is relief. “The perception is that Vermont remains in a position of strength to keep the law intact,” she said. But she warns against resting on victories and cites Roe vs. Wade as an example. “We know we can’t rest, because the battles will continue,” she said.

Opponents of the civil union law point to several possible amendments to the civil union law they might introduce. Take It to the People’s Jerry Smiley is espousing adding a residency requirement, eliminating access to civil unions for anyone from outside Vermont. Others want to expand the law to include blood relatives, such as maiden sisters who live together.

There is little room for change to the law, Robinson said. “What people are forgetting is that the civil union law is the result of an incredibly painful compromise by our community,” she said. “There’s nothing left to chip away.”

GLAD’s Bonauto agreed. “Any proposed changes should be rejected,” she said. Giving in even to the smallest of changes to the civil union law, she said will not serve to appease the opposition. “It would be a building block to dismantling the entire structure. This is a long-term civil rights issue, and you don’t concede on the basics.”

“Governor Dean has given me a personal assurance that he will veto any repeal of the civil union law,” said Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg, “but we haven’t had occasion to discuss the possibility of changes.” The pressure, said Lippert, the only openly gay member of House last session, will be on the Senate. “They will have to act, or not act, on anything the House passes,” he said. Having a Democratic majority there, he said, will make a big difference in preserving the law.

Virginia Renfrew of the Vermont Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights said the Republican-controlled House will give the GLBT community in Vermont an opportunity to do some significant education. “They need to talk to their legislators,” she said.

Renfrew thinks coalitions will be vital. “This will be a time for groups out there to work together,” she said. “We all have to support each other: the labor unions, children’s groups, women’s groups.”

The citizen’s initiative movement is likely to come up again, Renfrew said. “The groups have always been able to defeat it before,” she said. If such a measure were to pass, she said, it would be devastating for the community. “It’s a small minority going after a small minority while the majority stands back and watches.” She offered Maine as an example. That state’s civil rights law was overturned two years ago by 30 percent of the state’s citizens voting.