15
LViiiiiHriTi n ew s
S
tate lawmakers are pondering how to
respond to the Vermont Supreme
Court’s recent ruling stipulating that
same-sex couples cannot be denied
the full range of benefits available
through marriage.
The state Legislature convened Jan. 4 and is
slated to adjourn April 15.
State Senate President Pro Tern Peter Shum-
lin, a Democrat, told The Boston G lobe: “W e’re
going to try our best [to finish in the course of
this session]...but we have to do this right. 1
want to make sure that whatever we do works
and doesn’t result in another court challenge.”
O n the other hand, House Republican
Leader Walter Freed said, “I don’t think we have
time to do it justice within the next 16 weeks.”
In the landmark Dec. 20 decision, the state’s
high court ruled in favor of three same-sex cou
ples who challenged the constitutionality of
Vermont’s marriage laws.
The justices declared that the “extension of
the Common Benefits Clause to acknowledge
plaintiffs as Vermonters who seek nothing more,
nor less, than legal protection and security for
their avowed commitment to an intimate and
lasting human relationship is simply, when all is
said and done, a recognition of our common
humanity.”
The court concluded that statutory benefits
and protections of marriage must be extended to
same-sex couples, and directed the legislature to
remedy the discrimination.
The judges wrote: “We hold that the state is
constitutionally required to extend to same-sex
couples the common benefits and protections
that flow from marriage under Vermont law.
“W hether this ultimately takes the form of
inclusion within the marriage laws themselves
or a parallel ‘domestic partnership’ system or
some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with
the Legislature. Whatever system is chosen,
however, must conform with the constitutional
imperative to afford all Vermonters the common
benefit, protection and security of the law.”
Speaking to the Vermont Press Bureau,
Democratic state Rep. William Mackinnon
said, “If there’s a basic right here that’s being
denied to Vermonters, we’d better damn well
find what it is and remedy it.”
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat,
told reporters: “It’s in the best interest of all Ver
monters, gay and straight, to go forward with the
domestic partnership act, and not the gay mar
riage act. And that’s what I intend to do.”
Shumlin, meanwhile, noted: “Realistically, I
think a partnership bill is something we can
pass. Obviously marriage would be more diffi
cu lt.... I have no doubt that same-gender mar
riage is going to happen in the 21st century. I
don’t think Vermonters are ready for it yet."
"Whether this ultimately
takes the form o f
inclusion within the
marriage laws
themselves or
a parallel
'domestic partnership'
system or
some equivalent
statutory alternative,
rests with the
Legislature.
— Vermont Supreme
Court ruling
I n A nother C ourt
Following a state Supreme Court decision boosting same-sex unions,
Vermont legislators must now keep the ball rolling
Republican presidential candidate Gary
Bauer placed the court’s decision in the realm of
terrorism.
“1 think what the Vermont Supreme Court
did last week was in some ways worse than ter
rorism,” Bauer told reporters Dec. 27 at his New
Hampshire campaign headquarters.
It is, he added, an example of “a judicial deci
sion that attacks America’s deeply held values.”
But Holly Puterbaugh and Lois Famham,
one of the plaintiff couples, cheered the court’s
ruling. T he duo will celebrate their 27th
anniversary in October and say they look for
ward to the time when they “can finally make it
official.”
Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan of Shelburne,
and Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles of South
Burlington joined Famham and Puterbaugh in
challenging the state’s refusal to grant them civil
marriage licenses.
"It’s really a win-win situation for everyone,"
says Susan Murray, co-counsel for the plaintiffs
from the Middlebury law firm Langrock Sperry
& Wool. “The court’s decision will provide
added security and protection to same-sex cou
ples and their families without taking anything
away from anyone else.”
Mary Bonauto, the plaintiffs’ other co-coun
sel and civil rights director at New England-
based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders,
adds: “This is a legal and cultural milestone. The
court recognized that same-sex couples need and
deserve the same legal rights and protections
other people take for granted. The court’s deci
sion paves the way for more secure families and
stronger communities.”
Same-sex couples in Vermont will now be
eligible for the protections of a wide variety of
laws that recognize the relationship of married
partners.
For example, they will be able to inherit from
each other without a will, make medical deci
sions if the other is incapacitated, transfer prop
erty to each other without tax consequences,
and take time from work to care for each other
in the event of illness. A surviving spouse will be
able to bury his or her partner, and same-sex
couples can be treated as an economic unit for
tax purposes. In the event that same-sex married
partners break up, they can seek an ordered divi
sion of property through the divorce laws.
T he parties filed their lawsuit in Chittenden
Superior Court in July 1997 after each of the
three couples was denied a marriage license by
their local town clerk. The trial court dismissed
the case in December 1997, and the plaintiffs
appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in
the case in November 1998, and interested par
ties from all over the country submitted friend of
the court briefs.
In its ruling, the Vermont Supreme Court
suspended the case and retained jurisdiction in
order to ensure that the Legislature crafts an
appropriate response.
Not surprisingly, gay rights advocates nation
wide were jubilant.
Gwenn Baldwin, executive director of the
Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community C en
ter, said at a press conference: “This is a pro
found and historic ruling that promises hope for
social change for gays and lesbians. The message
from the Vermont Supreme Court is: It’s time to
end discrimination, not enact it.”
Mary B. W hite, a lesbian parent from Los
Angeles, spoke of the difficulties faced by same-
sex families.
“I work to provide for my family so my part
ner can stay home and raise our baby,” she said.
“My insurance covers me and my baby, but does
not cover my partner. It is a constant concern
that my relationship is not recognized and pro
tected under the law as a heterosexual couple
would be, should something happen to one of
them.”
The Vermont decision comes just weeks
before California’s March 7 statewide election
in which voters will consider Proposition 22,
commonly referred to as the Knight initiative,
which would bar recognition of same-sex mar
riages.
“The Knight initiative would enact the very
discrimination the Vermont Supreme Court has
ruled unconstitutional,” noted Baldwin.
■ The Focus G roup on F amily R ights , a pro
ject o f the Portland-based group Love M akes a Fam
ily, will m eet at 5 :3 0 p.m . Jan . 18 to discuss the
Vermont Supreme Court ruling and its implications
for pursuing domestic partnership registration within
the city o f Portland. For m ore information, call
(503) 228-3892.
Com piled by I nga S orensen
S ù % efitM mAUAÿa teAd te
Want to get into some hot water? Look no further than one of our Oregon HotSpring* Spas. Our
exclusive Mo to-Massage* jets surround you in soothing tranquility, providing hours of pleasure. The
super-efficient No-Fault heating system provides hours of pleasure without squeezing your pocketbook.
Plus, our award-winning spas are durable, simple to oprerate, easy to care for and most of all are
available with our chlorine-free spa-use system. Come visit one of our four convenient locations and find
the warm satisfaction you’ve been searching for all your life.
O rm xi
_ HotSprfcig Spas
10367 SW Canyon Rd 643-5002
Clackam as: 16 112 SE 82nd Or 5.•(**«* n il 650-8242
3966 Silvcrton Rd NE W>UKMtc) (503)363-4000
land:
61249 South Hwy 97 (541) 388-0905
Owe
of Lift’S TtewarUs,
www o rhotsp nnfsp as.com