News
Committees Hold Hearing on Baker Decision
HIV/AIDS Funding Rules Restrictions in Question
New Executive Director Hired for Outright Vermont
Marriage Issue Takes Center Stage at the Statehouse
Marriage Issue Takes Center Stage at the Statehouse
by Barbara Dozetos
On January 4, the first day of the 2000 legislative session, state representatives on the House Judiciary Committee met to discuss how to comply with the recent Vermont Supreme Court decision.
A domestic partnership bill sponsored by Senator Vincent Illuzzi of Orleans was introduced later that week, but will likely receive little play. The leadership of the General Assembly has agreed to let the House bear primary responsibility for conducting hearings and research, taking testimony, and drafting a bill for consideration initial consideration.
The House Judiciary Committee led off in this process.
“In view of the intense feelings and concerns that will be raised by and in our work on Baker v. State,” said committee chairman Tom Little, “my goal is to not only keep the Committee’s ‘eye’ on the Constitutional principles, but also to build consensus and avoid divisiveness within the General Assembly and throughout the state.”
In accordance with the Court’s instruction to deal with the inequality “in a timely fashion,” Little produced an “ambitious proposal” to have a bill ready to present to the full House by February 23. Committee member Bill Mackinnon agreed with the need to expedite the bill. “If Vermonters’ civil rights are hanging in the breeze, we shouldn’t leave here this spring until we’ve taken care of it,” said Mackinnon.
 |
| Vermonters hoping to testify on the issue of gay marriage lined up to offer their two-minutes' worth at the public hearing on January 25. photo: Jordan Silverman |
Testimony before the committee began on January 11 with Susan Murray and Beth Robinson, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case. The two stressed that the issue before the legislature is civil, not religious, marriage and that an alternative system of benefits seemingly parallel to marriage would not pass Constitutional muster. Several others, including law professors from Vermont Law School, have offered corroborating testimony.
Other witnesses have included representatives from the Attorney General’s office, whose job it will be to defend whatever legislation is produced on this issue. Although they offered no opinion on what action should be taken, Chief Assistant Attorney General Bill Griffin did say that he believes the marriage option would be much easier to defend legally.
Representatives of the Catholic Diocese of Vermont, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, and Take it to the People encouraged the committee to consider a range of options, including ignoring the Court’s ruling completely and beginning the process of amending the state’s constitution.
 |
| Rep. Bill Lippert of Hinesburg is the Vice-Chair of the committee currently dealing with the marriage issue. photo maxwell stroud |
Representative Bill Lippert of Hinesburg, the openly gay vice-chair of the committee, said he has “tried to find a balance between confronting and exposing witnesses who are clearly motivated by religious prejudice or positions of morality and allowing them enough rope to do themselves in.” Lippert said the “fair-minded” committee “is not going to be swayed by arguments based in prejudice and bigotry.”
The House Judiciary Committee also has jurisdiction over the Definition of Marriage Bill introduced last session by Representative George Schiavone. Although its author has renewed efforts to see it passed, the bill, which would restrict same gender couples from marriage, has been stalled in committee since it was assigned there early last year.
Opening Day Demonstration
Early assumptions following the Court’s December 20 decision were that domestic partnership is the only real plan of action. Governor Howard Dean has said on several occasions that he would support domestic partnership legislation, but is uncomfortable with the idea of actual gay marriage. Dean has recently clarified his position, declaring in a radio interview, “I’m against gay marriage.”
“Dean is out of touch with folks. I’m pretty sure that separate but equal isn’t going to fly,” said Judy Sargent of Marshfield, VT. “We should save ourselves a lot of trouble and time and just make it marriage.”
 |
| About 30 demonstrators turned out in Montpelier on opening day of the legislature to counter members of the Westboro Baptist Church who never appeared. photo: maxwell stroud |
Sargent was among a group of about 30 people who waited in vain for Kansas-based hate group Westboro Baptist Church to appear for an announced protest in front of the Statehouse on the legislature’s opening day.
Although Fred Phelps and his followers did not show up as promised, two residents of Waterbury did offer some distraction, carrying signs that read “Pass the law and they will come” and “Vermont’s too small to hold them all.”
Chris Viens was there to voice his fear that an influx of marriage-minded homosexuals would crowd Vermonters out of their jobs and state. “If even five percent of the country’s homosexuals move in here, we’re going to be over-run, said Viens. “We’ll all lose our jobs.” Viens later admitted he was a contractor who would potentially benefit if such growth did occur.
The two men stood their ground and engaged the gay rights supporters in lively conversation for about an hour.
Support for Marriage Grows
On January 14, House Bill 694, “An act relating to the ability to marry,” was introduced by a tri-partisan group of representatives.
Dean Corren of Burlington, lead sponsor of the bill, said the proposed legislation would make marriages between two people valid without regard to the gender of either person, provided they meet the requirements prescribed in the rest of Vermont’s existing marriage statutes.
 |
| Representatives Dean Corren and David Zuckerman are two of the six members of the House who signed onto H694, a bill that would include same-gender couples in Vermont's marriage statutes . photo: maxwell stroud |
Co-sponsors Republican Gordon Bristol of Brattleboro, Democrat David Deen of Westminster, Republican William Suchmann of Chester, Democrat Mary Sullivan of Burlington, and Progressive David Zuckerman of Burlington signed onto the bill Corren, also a Progressive, called it the most expedient and effective way of dealing with the Supreme Court’s Baker decision
The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee to include in its considerations.
Corren said it was inspiring to draft “the remedy for what may be the last great instance of legal discrimination based solely on bigotry. There is a growing momentum for genuine equal treatment, and a realization that domestic partnership will not work.”
Bill co-sponsor Suchmann made his support clear in a December 30 letter distributed in the legislature and to newspapers around the state. In the letter he asked fellow legislators to set aside emotional personal issues and do what he said was the right thing.
Support for H.694 was not difficult to find, Corren said. While not everyone was willing to sign on as a sponsor, many legislators indicated a willingness to vote for the bill if it received the approval of the judiciary committee. In particular, they will be watching the reaction of the committee’s highly respected chair, Tom Little of Shelburne, whose backing is considered important for its passage.