News

“Civil Domestic Union” to See Action in the House This Month

by Barbara Dozetos

The House Judiciary Committee may present its legislative answer to the Supreme Court’s Baker decision by the end of February.

The Senate is committed to returning the domestic partnership bill to the House for final approval this session only if they have it by the time Town Meeting break ends on March 13.

To meet this deadline, the House panel must vote the bill out of committee with time for the House Ways and Means Committee to work on the bill and have it ready to announce for floor debate no later than Feb. 25. Tentative plans for House floor debate are for Feb. 29 and Mar. 1.

House Judiciary Committee chair Tom Little addressed the House Republican caucus on Feb. 22, in preparation for the coming debate. Although he hopes to see the bill become law this session, he told the caucus, “Our allegiance is to the quality of legislation, not an arbitrary deadline.”

Although the bill being crafted is referred to as domestic partnership, Little’s committee is considering other names for it. He reminded fellow Republicans of a comment made in the Feb. 1 public hearing that “domestic partnership sounds like you’re asking someone to clean your house.”

Current indications are that the new legal status created by this legislation will be called “civil domestic union.”

Several questioned the wisdom of moving forward without more public input and complained the committee wasn’t responding to majority opinion.

“If we made all decisions based on majority opinion,” said Little, “civil rights wouldn’t be where they are today.”

Rep. Nancy Sheltra of Derby Line said regardless of what it is called, it is still too close to marriage for her liking.

“I was raised on a farm,” said Sheltra. “When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I know it’s a duck.”

Across the hall, the Democratic caucus, Little’s reception was warmer. As he rose to offer the majority party a similar briefing, the group gave him a standing ovation; they later voiced appreciation of the work he and his committee have done on this issue.

House Judiciary Committee Vice Chair Bill Lippert of Hinesburg addressed the caucus next.

“I want to remind you all,” said Lippert, “while we deliberate, gay and lesbian couples live without the rights and benefits they are entitled to.”

Lippert, the legislature’s only openly gay rep, asked the group to beware the ulterior motives of people calling for a longer process.

“Please respect the deliberation we have done,” he said, “and know that some people won’t be swayed, no matter how much time we take.”

Meanwhile, the counting has started. The committee has indicated it will not send a bill to the floor unless the votes are there to pass it. As of press time, the unofficial count was about a dozen short of the 76 needed to pass the House, with many legislators still undecided.

Supporters of the bill, including the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force and Action Committee, are making sure their presence is felt at the Statehouse.

Volunteers spent hours on the phone encouraging fellow supporters to contact their legislators, and hot pink “I Support The Freedom To Marry” stickers were prominently displayed on observers in committee and caucus meetings.

“While marriage is the only way to true equality, we believe good domestic partnership legislation — without a Defense of Marriage-type amendment — is a good first step,” said Beth Robinson, Task Force chair and attorney for the Baker plaintiffs.

The Road to DP

A House resolution introduced early in February in the House called for the legislature to “direct its efforts toward addressing the Supreme Court’s opinion while reaffirming and sustaining the definition and positive values of traditional marriage and protecting them from alteration by actions taken in other states.”

Although expert testimony from witnesses on both sides of the issue in the House Judiciary committee refutes many of the claims in the resolution, it was introduced with 68 sponsors. Backers of the resolution claimed as many as 90 supportive votes lined up.

The Speaker of the House referred it to the judiciary committee for consideration. (See page 6 for the full text and list of sponsors of this resolution.)

This came on the heel of testimony from leaders of several churches. Catholic Bishop Kenneth Angell got the invitation he had been seeking for weeks and appeared before the committee on Feb. 2, speaking against both same-gender marriage and domestic partnership. He was followed by Vermont’s Episcopal Bishop Mary Adelia McLeod, the United Church of Christ’s Vermont Conference minister Dr. Arnold Thomas, and Rabbi Joshua Chasan, and Rabbi Michael Cohen, all four of whom called for the inclusion of gays and lesbians in civil marriage.

Take It to the People’s Rev. Craig Benson ended the testimony for the morning, claiming that he was capable of rallying large numbers of people to fight against gay marriage, domestic partnership and legislators who might support either. Stories of his ex-gay ministry and claims of success in so-called reparative therapy did not draw an enthusiastic response from lawmakers.

On Feb. 3, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry held a press conference at his newly rented office just one block from the Statehouse. Declaring that the Supreme Court had invited him by issuing the Baker decision, he announced plans to “fight homosexual marriage and domestic partnership” by bringing in staff and supporters from all over the country.

Terry’s penchant for often less-than-civil disobedience had both TIP and the Catholic church issuing statements of their own asking Terry to go back to New York and let Vermonters handle the issue on their own.

Terry and his followers continue to be a pervasive and largely unwelcome presence at the Statehouse.

The Second Decision Day

It was in a highly emotional public meeting on February 9 that the judiciary committee of the Vermont House of Representatives voted to begin drafting what they call a “comprehensive civil rights bill” rather than including gay and lesbians in existing marriage statutes.

Each member of the eleven-member panel made a statement before a room packed with observers and media.

Little began by saying that Vermont families reflect a diversity of structures and a search for a so-called traditional template would be fruitless. He affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court in the Baker decision.

“In my judgement, a civil rights, or legal benefits act, is the right thing for the people of the state of Vermont now; not an expansion of the marriage laws,” Little said, “It will allow us to legislate with due respect to the sensibilities of all sides.”

“Leadership requires a keen sense of what ought to be done in the context of what can be done — what is achievable,” said Little, before passing the microphone to Lippert.

After a long silence during which he struggled to contain his emotions, Lippert disagreed. He noted the unique perspective he brought to the committee’s discussions as the only openly gay member of the General Assembly.

“One of the commitments in my life,” he said, “is to eliminate prejudice and discrimination for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people during my lifetime.” He said gay and lesbian relationships should be celebrated, rather than demeaned, within the Vermont community.

As the microphone moved around the table, each representative spoke of the difficulty of the decision. John Edwards of Swanton called it “the most gut-wrenching, emotional issue that I have faced.” Alice Nitka of Ludlow apologized for tears she could not hold back as she addressed the room.

Both Edwards and Nitka, while acknowledging that gays and lesbians should have equal rights, voted with Little and five other members of the committee to leave marriage laws intact and pursue a parallel system of domestic partnership or civil unions.

Progressive Steve Hingtgen of Burlington reprimanded the committee in his remarks. Calling anything other than marriage was inadequate, he said domestic partnership would validate hate.

“It institutionalizes the bigotry and affirmatively creates an apartheid system of family recognition in Vermont,” said Hingtgen.

Bill Mackinnon of Sharon joined Hingtgen and Lippert in voting to amend marriage statutes, making the final vote was eight to three against marriage.

Less than an hour after the committee took the public vote, a 22-page draft bill, An Act Relating to Domestic Partnerships, was in circulation.

The document attempted to create an arrangement exactly parallel to marriage; in its early drafts, it used as much of existing statutes as possible.

Outside the committee, only Governor Howard Dean seemed enthusiastic about the decision to move toward domestic partnerships. Vowing to devote his energy to “selling the idea” to legislators and the people of Vermont, Dean commended the panel.

Representative Dean Corren of Burlington, lead sponsor of a bill that would include gays and lesbians in marriage statutes, was angered by the decision of the judiciary committee.

“They can’t call this a civil rights bill,” said Corren. “This is a denial of civil rights.”

Others were equally unimpressed, but in another direction. Immediately following the committee’s decision, twelve representatives introduced a resolution calling for the impeachment of the Supreme Court for its decision in Baker v Vermont. The resolution was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, where it is expected to stay without action. (See page 6 for the text and sponsor list of this resolution.)