News

Committees Hold Hearing on Baker Decision

Crowd braves weather to be heard at packed Statehouse

House and Senate Judiciary committees listened for more than four hours on Jan. 25. About 100 Vermonters expressed opinions on meeting the Supreme Court's mandate in the Dec. 20 Baker decision. Photo: Jordan Silverman

Despite a snowstorm that ravaged the northeast, more than a thousand Vermonters showed up at the Statehouse on January 25 to attend a public hearing held by the House and Senate Judiciary committees.

The question: How should the legislature to the Supreme Court decision in Baker v Vermont?

Although the majority of early speakers devoted their allotted two minutes to advocating same-sex marriage, their opposition was more vocal in the latter part of the evening.

Some proponents of same-sex marriage told lawmakers that marriage has been redefined many times to correct historical inequalities.

Others stuck to character testimonials of their own or others’ gay and lesbian families.

(Left to right) Representatives Mike Edwards and Alice Nitka listened as Lauri Morrison of Norwich described keeping her family's personal life a secret for years. She was one of at least two people who made the decision to out themselves at the public hearing. Photo: Jordan Silverman

At least two speakers publicly outed themselves, describing the stress of living lives in secrecy and inequality.

Opponents of same-gender marriage relied heavily on scriptural interpretations. Many took the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach.

“Marriage was defined by God Almighty, not human beings,” said Martha Foster of Jericho. “Though I wish I had the liberty to say they can marry, I don’t have that right.”

Others condemned homosexuality itself. One speaker used lengths of pipe to demonstrate the physical impossibility of same-sex union.

Many felt the Court had overstepped its jurisdiction in the Baker ruling and called for referenda and constitutional amendments to allow only heterosexual marriage.

Only a handful of witnesses on either side advocated a parallel system to marriage, and many spoke against it.

Peter Harrigan (right) and his partner Stan Baker are one of the three coupled Beth Robinson (left) represented in Baker v Vermont. Robinson's co-counsels Susan Murray and Mary Bonauto attended the public hearing on January 25.. Photo: Jordan Silverman

“Here’s a litmus test to tell you when you’ve created an equal system,” said Donna Lescoe of Starksboro. “When everyone in this room is comfortable trading in their marriage license for whatever the new system is, then you’ve got it.”

“The one thing that became clear tonight,” said Senator Dick McCormack of Bethel, “is that domestic partnership may not be the easy compromise originally thought.”

But if there was no consensus, there was also no lack of civility. Although almost two dozen state and local police and security personnel were on hand, the crowd largely remained polite and calm.

“I am extremely proud of our community,” said Representative Bill Lippert, the openly gay vice-chair of the House Judiciary Committee. “We handled ourselves wonderfully on an important night.”