Town meeting balloting proposals are meeting with some success, while pushes for a citizens’ initiative and a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to opposite-gender couples have not yet made much headway.

Two Rutland county lawmakers have sent a letter asking selectboards of every town in the state to add two non-binding questions on their respective ballots for March 7.

Senator John Bloomer of Rutland and Representative Robert Helm of Castleton want voters to answer questions on whether they agree with legalized same-gender marriage and whether the state should create a substantially equal domestic partnership system.

“Many people cannot, or will not, come to Montpelier to testify publicly, even on issues such as these that concern everyone in our state,” their letter read in part. “[W]e feel that each and every Vermonter deserves the right to voice their opinion.”

“I think the people out there want us to hear from them,” Helm told the Rutland Herald.

Rutland City and Town boards were receptive to the idea of including the question on town ballots, the Herald reported on January 21.

Rockingham has already drafted a ballot item that, if passed, would ask the legislature to put the marriage issue up for a statewide referendum.

Virginia Renfrew of the Vermont Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights said this is a dangerous move. “When you go after the majority’s voice this way, you don’t get the majority’s voice,” she said. Renfrew said town meeting turnout is traditionally low, and such a ballot characterizes the sentiment of only a small proportion of citizens.

Representative David Zuckerman, co-sponsor of a bill that would change the marriage laws to include same-sex couples, also cautions against putting too much stock in majority rule when civil rights are at stake. “There are only a handful of issues where there is simply clear right or wrong and this is one of them,” he said. “This is one of the issues that you fall on the sword for politically as a leader.”

A citizens’ initiative proposal was unsuccessfully introduced as an amendment to the budget change bill on January 14.

Perkinsville Representative Gary Richardson’s proposal would have allowed groups of citizens to have their issue on a statewide ballot during an election. A majority vote in favor of the issue would require the legislature to act upon it within 20 days.

“One of the problems with the citizens’ initiative process,” said Renfrew, “is that special interest groups, often financed with out-of-state money, usually organize and sponsor the initiatives, not ordinary working women and men.”

Instead of encouraging the input of ordinary citizens, she said, it opens the door for well-financed special interest groups to exert influence on the legislative process. “It can become a matter of one minority group going after another minority group,” said Renfrew, “while the majority stays home and does not vote.”

Representative Paul Poirier of Barre City immediately objected to Richardson’s amendment by calling a point of order. Speaker of the House Michael Obuchowski agreed that the amendment was not related to the bill to which it would be amended, and the issue was dropped from that debate.

Meanwhile, in the upper house of the General Assembly, Senator Julius Canns of Concord is seeking support for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as an arrangement between one man and one woman. Such action would require the support of two-thirds of senators in order to pass to the House of Representatives.