Attack on Civil Unions Continues

The Republican majority in the Vermont House appears to be determined to force a vote on repeal of civil unions, even though it can’t pass the Senate.

Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Peg Flory has been holding hearings on a bill she’s drafted that would provide “reciprocal partnerships” in place of civil unions.

Flory’s bill would repeal the existing law and offer the new partnerships not only to same-sex couples, but to any couples not currently permitted to marry.

That would include blood relatives, such as two sisters or a woman and her father.

Flory insists that her bill is not intended as a way of getting rid of the civil unions law. She says her intention is to eliminate sexual orientation as a criteria for getting the rights and benefits of marriage.

“What it purports to do is convey the rights, benefits and protections to both gay people and other people that cannot currently be married,” Flory said.

Her arguments have been rejected and the need for the bill has been questioned by people who have testified before the Judiciary Committee.

“If we truly wanted to take sexual orientation out of the issue, we would totally open up the marriage statutes,” said Middlebury lawyer Susan Murray. “The reciprocal partnership legislation is based exclusively on heterosexual sexual orientation. And the attorney general’s office has basically told Flory not to try to enact her bill.”

“To the extent you want to conform to Baker, you’ve done it,” Chief Assistant Attorney General William Griffin said. “Leave well enough alone. Your lawyer, as the attorney general, says we’ll defend (civil unions). We think we’ll win.”

Flory’s proposal also would get rid of the requirements that civil unions need to be certified and licensed, similar to the way marriages are solemnized and licensed. Partnerships would be registered with the Health Department and would be treated similar to a contract. Her proposal also would alter the way the partnerships are dissolved, eliminating the need for them to go through divorce proceedings in Family Court.

Griffin said all of those provisions were problematic under the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling in the Baker case.

One of the central principles on which the civil unions law was based was that it had to be a “mirror image of the marriage statute,” Griffin said. That’s why civil union licenses have to be issued by town clerks, the unions have to be “certified” by justices of the peace or members of the clergy, and their breakups have to be handled like divorces in Family Court.

Peter Teachout, a constitutional law professor at Vermont Law School, said all of those could subject the proposal to constitutional challenges under the Baker decision because they stray from marriage law.

“I begin to see some differential treatment,” Teachout said. “I think there’s a greater likelihood this legislation would be challenged.”

None of that appears to matter much to the staunchest opponents of civil unions. Five members of the Judiciary Committee appear to be committed to supporting Flory’s bill, in large part because it would present an opportunity to amend the proposal on the floor and simply repeal civil unions without offering a replacement.

Rep. Sylvia Kennedy, R-Chelsea, believes the voters who elected her wanted the civil unions law repealed and they don’t want to replace it with anything, regardless of the court’s ruling.

“There doesn’t seem to be much sense to putting a bill like this out,” Kennedy said of Flory’s proposal. “I feel strongly that we need to make a move (toward repeal). I need to pay attention to what my people said.”