STATE HOUSE
TELEPHONE: (802) 828-2231
115 STATE STREET
MONTPELIER, VT 05633-5301
| STATE OF VERMONT | ||
|
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STATE HOUSE TELEPHONE: (802) 828-2231 |
MAILING ADDRESS: 115 STATE STREET MONTPELIER, VT 05633-5301 |
Summary: Work of the House Judiciary Committee
for the week of February 8 - 11, 2000.This week saw the Committee intensify its discussions concerning its recommendation to the House for the General Assembly's response to the Vermont Supreme Court's Baker v. State decision of December 20, 1999. Some additional testimony was taken, but the Committee's focus was on structure and scope. The discussions resulted in the Committee choosing to work on a "domestic partnership" model for the legislation in lieu of an expansion of the marriage statutes. The Committee ended the week with a section-by-section review of a working rough draft of a bill.
1. Witnesses
Brian Pearl, of Grande Isle County, gave testimony that addressed his view of the meaning of the Common Benefits Clause at the time of its inclusion in the Vermont Constitution in the late 18th century. He articulated his opinion that, at its adoption, the Clause then meant to deal with the risk that state government might try to grant special privileges to private individuals and not to all citizens of the state.
Gary Hartsock, a minister from Lyndonville, explained his view that the Baker decision contradicted or violated the natural law upon which Vermont was founded and from which, in his view, all laws flow.
Sandra Baird, a Burlington attorney with over 25 years of experience in family law, including divorce, testified that the state's primary legitimate interest in marriage and, accordingly, in a domestic partnership form of civil union, was the protection of the rights and economic status of women and children. She urged the Committee to be vigilant concerning the legal and economic status of women who are single parents.
2. Committee Discussion and Decision
On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Committee discussed the scope and form of legislation it would recommend to the full House. Late Wednesday morning, the Chair asked each member to express his or her recommendation and preferences. Starting with the Chair, each member gave an articulate, heartfelt and sometimes emotional presentation of reasons either for a domestic partnership form of legislation, or for amending the marriage statutes to include gays and lesbian couples. The resulting straw vote showed that while all members expressed a willingness to work on legislation providing the legal rights inherent in the Common Benefits Clause, eight members favored proceeding with a domestic partnership format, while three favored expansion of the marriage statutes.
3. Work on Rough Draft of "Domestic Partnership" Bill
Starting Wednesday afternoon, and continuing through Friday afternoon, the Committee initiated its work on a rough working draft of a domestic partnership bill. The Chair encouraged the Committee to come up with a more appropriate title for this new legal status. The draft is patterned after the form of the Vermont marriage statutes, and provides that the legal attributes of civil marriage apply to persons who validly enter into a domestic partnership.
Copies of the draft are available from Legislative Council. A revised draft is expected to be examined by the Committee by February 15 or 16.
Note: This summary was prepared by the Chair, and reflects his notes and impressions of the testimony of the witnesses and the Committee's discussions.