Download this document in MS Word 97 format

Journal of the House

________________

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000

At nine o'clock in the forenoon the Speaker called the House to order.

Devotional Exercises

Devotional exercises were conducted by Reverend Steven Doe of the Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Barre.

House Resolution Referred to Committee

H.R. 37

Rep. Robb of Swanton offered a joint resolution, entitled

House resolution requesting the Senate to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman

Whereas, the Vermont Supreme Court, in the recent decision Baker v State, has declared that a marriage under Vermont law is a union between a man and a woman, and

Whereas, despite this declaration, the Vermont Supreme Court, in holding that couples of the same sex were entitled to the same legal rights and privileges as married couples, placed in doubt the future of marriage as exclusively a union between a man and a woman, and

Whereas, Vermonters have strongly expressed their opinions on this issue, and they overwhelmingly oppose defining marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman, and

Whereas, the only legislative recourse to guarantee that marriage continues to be defined exclusively as a union between a man and a woman is to amend the Vermont Constitution to include this very fundamental principle, and

Whereas, in order to afford the Vermont electorate the earliest possible opportunity, at the November 2002 general elections, to vote whether to amend the Vermont Constitution to define marriage as exclusively a legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman, the General Assembly must complete the initial amendment approval process prior to the final adjournment in 2000, now therefore be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the House of Representatives requests the Senate to promptly adopt, and forward to the House for action, a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and be it further

Resolved: That the Clerk of the House be directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Chair of the Senate Committee on Government Operations.

Which was read and referred to the committee on Judiciary.

Joint Resolutions Placed on Calendar

The Speaker placed before the House the following resolutions which were read and in the Speaker's discretion, placed on the Calendar for action tomorrow under Rule 52.

J.R.H. 205

Joint resolution urging Congress to fully subsidize all absentee ballot postal costs

Offered by: Representatives Mazur of South Burlington and Barbieri of Wallingford

Whereas, voting is one of the most cherished rights of citizenship that the citizens of Vermont freely and enthusiastically exercise on town meeting day, and at primary and general elections, and

Whereas, Vermonters have long recognized the act of marking their Australian Ballots is a critical prerequisite to perpetually rotate the wheels of democracy, and

Whereas, while the citizens of Vermont have historically voted in higher percentages than their counterparts in most other states, many persons, due to illness, and important family, academic or business commitments, are unable to personally cast their ballots on election day, and

Whereas, recognizing that expanding the pool of potential absentee voters would encourage more individuals to vote, the General Assembly has lifted many of the restrictions that were once placed on exercising the vote through the absentee process, and

Whereas, while broadening access to the ballot box has served as a positive stimulus for the electoral process, it has burdened municipalities with increased postal expenses related to the mailing of absentee voting materials, and is an unfunded state mandate, and

Whereas, Vermont's decision to expand the availability of absentee ballots is hardly unique among the states, and

Whereas, the ability for voters to return an absentee ballot, postage free, would be a wise public investment in strengthening the vitality of the electoral system, both here in Vermont and nationwide, now therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:

That the General Assembly urges the United States Congress to enact legislation directing the United States Postal Service to adopt regulations providing for the postage free mailing, by municipalities, of absentee voting-related materials to voters, and for citizens remitting their marked ballots, and be it further

Resolved: That the Secretary of State be directed to send a copy of this resolution to U.S. Senators George Voinovich of Ohio and Richard Durbin of Illinois, the chair and ranking minority member of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia; U.S. Representatives John M. McHugh of New York and Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, the chair and ranking minority member of the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Postal Service; the Vermont Congressional Delegation and U.S. Postmaster William J. Henderson.

J.R.H. 206

Joint Resolution relating to the Plymouth cheese factory

Offered by: Representative Wood of Brandon

Whereas, Sec. 5(a)(2) of Act No. 148 of the Acts of 1997 (Adjourned Session), concerning state acquisition of the Plymouth Notch Cheese Factory at the Plymouth Notch Historic District, requires legislative approval of a marketing plan and operating agreement with a third party for operation or sale of the factory prepared by the department of housing and community affairs, and

Whereas, the required plan and operating agreement have been prepared, now therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:

That the general assembly hereby approves of the required marketing plan and operating agreement, and be it further

Resolved: That the secretary of state is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the commissioner of housing and community affairs.

Committee Bill Introduced

H. 852

Rep. Little of Shelburne, for the committee on Judiciary, introduced a bill, entitled

An act relating to patients' access to their medical records;

Which was read the first time and, under the rule, placed on the Calendar for notice tomorrow.

Senate Bills Referred

Senate bills of the following titles were severally taken up, read the first time and referred as follows:

S. 240

Senate bill, entitled

An act relating to the management of stormwater runoff;

To the committee on Natural Resources and Energy.

S. 296

Senate bill, entitled

An act relating to explosives and fireworks;

To the committee on Judiciary.

Bill Referred to Committee on Appropriations

H. 843

House bill, entitled

An act relating to assisting families to attain self-sufficiency;

Appearing on the Calendar, carrying an appropriation, under rule 35a, was referred to the committee on Appropriations.

Joint Resolution Adopted

J.R.H. 204

Joint resolution in memory of former Representative, Senator and Commissioner of Social Welfare, John J. Wackerman;

Was taken up and adopted on the part of the House.

Third Reading; Bills Passed

House bills of the following titles were severally taken up, read the third time and passed:

H. 632

House bill, entitled

An act relating to work zone speed violations.

H. 705

House bill, entitled

An act relating to particular proceedings of the public service board.

Bill Read the Second Time; Amended;

Consideration Interrupted by Recess

H. 847

Rep. Deen of Westminster, for the committee on Ways and Means, to which had been referred House bill, entitled

An act relating to civil unions;

Reported in favor of its passage when amended as follows:

First: In Sec. 3, in section 1204(e)(14), after the word "municipality", by adding "other than estate taxes"

Second: By striking Secs. 20 through 23, and inserting new Secs. 20 through 23 to read:

Sec. 20. 32 V.S.A. § 3001 is amended to read:

§ 3001. *[PERSON CONSTRUED]* DEFINITIONS

(a) *[The word "person"]* "Person" as used in Parts 2, 4 and 5 of this subtitle shall include a partnership, association, corporation or limited liability company.

(b) "Party to a civil union" is defined for purposes of Title 32 as under subdivision 1201(4) of Title 15.

(c) "Laws of the United States", "federal tax laws" and other references to United States tax law (other than federal estate and gift tax law) shall mean United States tax law applied as if federal law recognized a civil union in the same manner as Vermont law.

Sec. 21. 32 V.S.A. § 5812 is added to read:

§ 5812. INCOME TAXATION OF PARTIES TO A CIVIL UNION

This chapter shall apply to parties to a civil union and surviving parties to a civil union as if federal income tax law recognized a civil union in the same manner as Vermont law.

Sec. 22. 32 V.S.A. § 7401(a) is amended to read:

(a) This chapter is intended to conform the Vermont *[inheritance]* estate tax laws with the estate and gift tax provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code, except as otherwise expressly provided, in order to simplify the taxpayer's filing of returns, reduce the taxpayer's accounting burdens, and facilitate the collection and administration of these taxes. Because federal estate and gift tax law does not recognize a civil union in the same manner as Vermont law, and because a reduction in the Vermont estate tax liability for parties to a civil union based upon the federal marital deduction would not reduce the total estate tax liability, estates of parties to a civil union shall be subject to tax based on their actual federal estate tax liability and the federal credit for state death taxes, as provided under this chapter.

Sec. 23. 32 V.S.A. § 3802(11) is amended to read:

(11)(A) Real and personal property to the extent of $10,000.00 of appraisal value, except any part used for business or rental, occupied as the established residence of and owned in fee simple by a veteran of any war or a veteran who has received an American Expeditionary Medal, his or her spouse, widow, widower or child, or jointly by any combination of them, if one or more of them are receiving disability compensation for at least fifty percent disability, death compensation, dependence and indemnity compensation, or pension for disability paid through any military department or the veterans administration if, before May 1 of each year, there is filed with the listers:

*[(A)]*(i) a written application therefor; and *[(B)]*(ii) a written statement from the military department or the veterans administration showing that the compensation or pension is being paid. Only one exemption may be allowed on a property.

(B) The terms used in this *[subdivision]* subsection shall have the same definitions as in Title 38, U.S. Code § 101, except that:

(i) the definitions shall apply as if federal law recognized a civil union in the same manner as Vermont law;

(ii) such definitions shall not be construed to deny eligibility for exemption in the case where such exemption is based on retirement for disability and retirement pay is received from a federal agency other than the veterans administration*[,]* ; and

(iii) the age and marital status limits in section 101(4)(A) shall not apply.

An unremarried widow or widower of a previously qualified veteran shall be entitled to the exemption provided in this *[subdivision]* subsection whether or not he or she is receiving government compensation or pension. By majority vote of those present and voting at an annual or special meeting warned for the purpose, a town may increase the veterans' exemption under this subsection to up to $20,000.00 of appraisal value. Any increase in exemption shall take effect for the taxable year in which it was voted, and shall remain in effect for future taxable years until amended or repealed by a similar vote.

Third: In Sec. 26, on page 34, line 1, after the word "fee", by inserting "of $10.00" ; and on page 34, line 8, by striking "the fee" and inserting in lieu thereof "a filing fee of $10.00"; and on page 35, by striking lines 4 through 6; and on page 35, line 7, by striking "(d)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(c)".

Fourth: In Sec. 39, by striking subsections (b), (c) and (d) and adding new subsections (b) and (c) to read:

(b) Sec. 20 (tax definitions) and Sec. 21 (income taxation of parties to a civil union) of this act shall apply to taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2001.

(c) Sec. 23 of this act (veterans' property tax exemption) shall apply to grand lists for 2001 and after.

And by relettering subsection (e) as subsection (d)

The bill, having appeared on the Calendar one day for notice, was taken up and read the second time and the report of the committee on Ways and Means agreed to.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time?

Recess

At ten o'clock and forty-five minutes in the forenoon, the Speaker declared a recess until one o'clock in the afternoon.

Afternoon

At one o'clock and ten minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order.

Consideration Resumed; Consideration Interrupted by Recess;

Consideration Resumed and Third Reading Ordered

H. 847

Consideration resumed on House bill, entitled

An act relating to civil unions.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Koch of Barre Town moved to amend the bill as follows:

By striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 1. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

(a) The following question shall be submitted to the voters of the state of Vermont on November 7, 2000:

Shall a constitutional convention be convened for the sole and limited

purpose of responding to the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in

Baker v. State of Vermont?

(b) If a majority of the votes cast on the foregoing question are in the affirmative, the voters shall elect the delegates to the convention on March 6, 2001. There shall be 300 delegates, two from each single member representative district, and four from each two member representative district. A petition to place the name of a candidate for delegate on the ballot shall bear the signatures of 50 voters in the district and shall be filed with the representative district clerk on or before January 15, 2001. Elections for delegates shall be non-partisan, and there shall be no primaries; in all other respects, elections shall be conducted as nearly as may be in the same manner as elections for state representative.

(c) The delegates shall meet in Montpelier on July 10, 2001 at a place designated by the secretary of state. The delegates shall select a chair and secretary, adopt their own rules of procedure, and proceed to consideration of the matter for which the convention was organized. In the conduct of their business, the delegates shall have the assistance of the legislative council. Upon completion of the business of the convention, the chair and secretary shall certify to the secretary of state any amendments which the convention shall propose to the people for adoption.

(d) Any amendments proposed by the convention shall be submitted to the voters for ratification on November 6, 2001, in accordance with the procedure set forth in chapter 32 of Title 17. A majority of the people voting shall constitute ratification. On certification of that majority by the secretary of state within 14 days following ratification, the changes will be incorporated in the constitution and have force and effect as of January 1, 2002.

(e) Delegates shall be entitled to reimbursement for expenses as provided for members of the general assembly while the general assembly is in session, pursuant to section 1052 of Title 32.

Sec. 2. APPROPRIATION

The sum of $150,000.00 is appropriated to the secretary of state in fiscal year 2002 to defray the costs of a constitutional convention, if a convention is approved by the voters; in the event the voters do not approve the calling of a convention, the said sum shall revert to the general fund.

Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as recommended by Rep. Koch of Barre Town? Rep. Mullin of Rutland Town demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as amended, as recommended by Rep. Koch of Barre Town? was decided in the negative. Yeas, 45. Nays, 103.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Angell of Randolph

Baker of West Rutland

Barney of Highgate

Brown of Walden

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Cleland of Northfield

Crawford of Burke

DePoy of Rutland

Flory of Pittsford

Freed of Dorset

Gray of Barre Town

Helm of Castleton

Hoag of Woodford

Houston of Ferrisburgh

Hudson of Lyndon

Johnson of Canaan

Koch of Barre Town

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

Lehman of Hartford

Maslack of Poultney

Mazur of South Burlington

Metzger of Milton

Mullin of Rutland Town

O'Donnell of Vernon

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pembroke of Bennington

Pike of Mendon

Quaid of Williston

Randall of Bradford

Richardson of Weathersfield

Robb of Swanton

Rogers of Castleton

Schiavone of Shelburne

Sherman of St. Johnsbury

Smith of New Haven

Starr of Troy

Sweetser of Essex

Valsangiacomo of Barre City

Waite of Pawlet

Willett of St. Albans City

Winters of Williamstown

Wood of Brandon

Young of Orwell

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alfano of Calais

Allard of St. Albans Town

Anderson of Woodstock

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Barbieri of Wallingford

Blanchard of Essex

Bouricius of Burlington

Bristol of Brattleboro

Brooks of Montpelier

Buckland of Newport Town

Carmolli of Rutland City

Colvin of Bennington

Corren of Burlington

Costello of Brattleboro

Cross of Winooski

Dakin of Colchester

Darrow of Newfane

Darrow of Dummerston

Deen of Westminster

Deuel of West Rutland

Dominick of Starksboro

Doyle of Richmond

Edwards of Swanton

Emmons of Springfield

Flaherty of South Burlington

Follett of Springfield

Fox of Essex

Fyfe of Newport City

Gervais of Enosburg

Ginevan of Middlebury

Gretkowski of Burlington

Hathaway of Barton

Heath of Westford

Hingtgen of Burlington

Holmes of Bethel

Hooker of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hube of Londonderry

Hummel of Underhill

Hyde of Fayston

Jordan of Middlesex

Kainen of Hartford

Keenan of St. Albans City

Kehler of Pomfret

Kinsey of Craftsbury

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Krasnow of Charlotte

Kreitzer of Rutland City

LaBarge of Grand Isle

Lafayette of Burlington

Levin of Hartland

Lippert of Hinesburg

Little of Shelburne

Livingston of Manchester

Mackinnon of Sharon

Mallary of Brookfield

Marron of Stowe

Masland of Thetford

Mazzariello of Rutland City

McGrath of Ferrisburgh

McNamara of Burlington

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Milne of Washington

Molloy of Arlington

Morrissey of Bennington

Neiman of Georgia

Nitka of Ludlow

Nuovo of Middlebury

Osman of Plainfield

Palmer of Pownal

Paquin of Fairfax

Parizo of Essex

Partridge of Windham

Perry of Richford

Poirier of Barre City

Postman of Brownington

Pugh of South Burlington

Rivero of Milton

Rusten of Halifax

Schaefer of Colchester

Seibert of Norwich

Severance of Colchester

Sheltra of Derby

Smith of Sudbury

Steele of Waterbury

Stevens of Newbury

Suchmann of Chester

Sullivan of Burlington

Sweaney of Windsor

Symington of Jericho

Towne of Berlin

Tracy of Burlington

Vincent of Waterbury

Vinton of Colchester

Voyer of Morristown

Weiss of Northfield

Westman of Cambridge

Wheeler of Burlington

Wisell of Bristol

Woodward of Johnson

Zuckerman of Burlington

Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:

Bourdeau of Hyde Park

Rep. DePoy of Rutland City explained his vote as follows:

"Mr. Speaker:

Risky? Maybe - no more risky than the underlying bill. The best way? I don't know. I'd like to find out. The way the people of this state want it? YES!! We have said all along we only wanted people from Vermont on this issue. This amendment would give the people the chance they want...not want... Demand."

Rep. Sheltra of Derby explained her vote as follows:

"Mr. Speaker:

This amendment does not guarantee me, or my constituents, that other Constitutional rights may not be subverted during the process."

Rep. Randall of Bradford moved that the House adjourn until August 29, 2000, which motion the Speaker ruled out of order, in that it is in violation of Chapter II, Article 6, of the Vermont Constitution, which says that neither the House or Senate may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Reps. Flory of Pittsford, Schiavone of Shelburne and Starr of Troy moved to amend the bill by striking all after the enacting clause and by inserting in lieu thereof the following:

Sec.1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS

The Legislature hereby finds and declares:

(1) That marriage is and ought to remain a legally recognized union of one man and one woman.

(2) That individuals may suffer inequities and could be denied certain benefits and protections available only to married couples;

(3) That there are other caring and supporting relationships between two people, regardless of gender, including but not limited to elderly siblings, grand-parent and adult grand-child, who may thereby also be denied the benefits and protections available to married couples;

(4) That the General Assembly of the State of Vermont should and does recognize the potential for the inequity of affording benefits and protections to married couples which are not available to these other domestic units, and resolves to rectify this potential inequity in a reasonable and deliberative process through means which do not undermine our society's historical and religious concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Sec. 2. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND IMPLEMENTATION

(a) It is the purpose of this act to afford benefits, protections and responsibilities to domestic units, other than married couples, and to implement the same in a reasonable and deliberative process in three stages as follows:

(1) On July 1, 2000, the provisions of 15 V.S.A. § 1303, as added by this act, which extend to domestic units the benefits, protections and responsibilities pertaining to health care decisions, hospital visitation, designation of anatomical gifts, disposal of remains at death and suits for wrongful death, shall take effect.

(2) On July 1, 2001, the provisions of 15 V.S.A. § 1304 (a), as added by this act, which extend to domestic units those benefits, protections and responsibilities currently provided only to married people and which may be obtained by others only through amendment to existing state statutes, and if amended accordingly by the General Assembly, shall take effect.

(3) On July 1, 2002, the provisions of 15 V.S.A. § 1304 (b), as added by this act, which extend to domestic units the benefits, protections and responsibilities currently bestowed automatically on married people but which may be obtained by contractual arrangement of the parties, and if so authorized by statute of the General Assembly where necessary, shall take effect.

(b) It is not the purpose of this act to expand or affect in any way the existing and traditional institution of marriage. Nothing in this act shall be construed to amend, modify or alter the existing laws, benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities, as they pertain in the state of Vermont to marriage between one man and one woman.

Sec. 3. 15 V.S.A. chapter 25 is added to read:

Chapter 25 DOMESTIC UNITS

§ 1301 DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this chapter:

(1) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Health.

(2) "Contract document" means a document issued by the Commissioner of Health that certifies that the parties named on the document have contracted to establish a domestic unit in this state in compliance with this chapter.

(3) "Domestic unit" means two who have entered into a contract to form a domestic unit for mutual benefit and support under the provisions of section 1302 of this title.

(4) "Marriage" means the legally recognized union of one man and one woman.

§1302. DOMESTIC UNIT; CREATION; DISSOLUTION; COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH; DUTIES

(a) To establish a domestic unit, two individuals shall apply on documents provided by the Commissioner of Health, on which the individuals affirm thereon that:

(1) each of the parties consents to the formation of a domestic unit, and that the consent of neither party has been obtained by force, fraud or duress; (2) each of the parties is at least 18 years old;

(3) neither of the parties is married nor a party to any other domestic unit; and

(4) the parties meet the residency requirements for marriage in this state.

(b) A domestic unit contract document shall be signed by the parties in the presence of at least one disinterested witness and acknowledged before a notary. The contract shall be filed by the parties with the Commissioner of Health, who shall provide each of the parties with a certified copy of the domestic unit contract.

(c) The Commissioner of Health shall provide domestic unit contract documents to all town clerks. The commissioner shall keep all records of domestic units in accordance with the requirements for other vital records pursuant to section 5001 of Title 18.

(d) A domestic unit may be dissolved by either or both parties. The parties, jointly or individually, may apply to the Commissioner of Health for a certificate of dissolution of a domestic unit contract, on forms prepared by the commissioner, which shall set forth, at a minimum, provisions for the dissolution of all assets and liabilities of the parties to the domestic unit contract. If the dissolution is not contested, the completed form shall be signed by the parties before at least one disinterested witness and acknowledged before a notary. In the event the parties do not agree to the terms of the dissolution of the contract or to an appropriate distribution of all assets and liabilities, the Superior Court for the Superior Court district in which at least one of the parties resides shall have jurisdiction to order the dissolution and determine an equitable division of the assets and liabilities of the parties. Thirty days after the issuance of its judgment, or upon final determination of any appeal, the Superior Court shall forward a copy of its final order to the Commissioner of Health who shall issue a certificate of dissolution.

§1303 HEALTH CARE -BENEFITS, PROTECTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on and after July 1, 2000 the following list of statutory provisions affecting the rights, status, or obligations of spouses shall apply in like manner to parties of domestic units authorized under this chapter:

(1) causes of action, excluding divorce, which are recognized at law which are conditioned upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, dramshop, or other torts and actions under contracts; and

(2) laws relating to emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation, and notification, including the Patient's Bill of Rights (18 V.S.A. §1852) and the Nursing Home Resident's Bill of Rights (33 V.S.A. §7301), and designation of anatomical gifts and disposal of remains at death.

§ 1304 DETERMINATION OF CONTRACTUAL AND STATUTORY BENEFITS, PROTECTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

(a) The staff of the Legislative Council of the General Assembly shall identify and review all benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are provided by law to married couples which are not currently available to members of domestic units and cannot be contractually obtained. With respect to each of the benefits, protections, and responsibilities, the staff of the Legislative Council shall prepare draft legislation to extend these benefits to domestic units, and to provide a process for dissolution of such domestic units if applicable. The staff of the Legislative Council shall reports its findings, recommendations and draft legislation to the General Assembly on or before January 10, 2001. Upon receipt of the report of the staff of the Legislative Council, the General Assembly shall enact such amendments to the laws of the state as it deems appropriate to extend such statutory benefits, protections and responsibilities to domestic units to take effect on and after July 1, 2001.

(b) The staff of the Legislative Council shall also identify all such benefits, protections, and responsibilities that may be made available to such domestic units through private contractual agreements. If provisions of current law prohibit or limit such contracts, the staff of the Legislative Council shall identify such provisions, recommend any appropriate statutory changes, and prepare draft legislation for that purpose. The General Assembly shall enact such amendments as it deems appropriate to extend such benefits, protections and responsibilities by contractual agreement to domestic units to take effect on and after July 1, 2002.

Sec. 4. 15 V.S.A. §5 is amended to read:

§ 5 MARRIAGE ENTERED INTO IN ANOTHER STATE

(a) If a person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state is prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state and such person goes into another state or country and there contracts a marriage prohibited and declared void by the laws of this state, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in this state.

(b) This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction regarding legal marriage that does not also meet the requirements of this chapter.

Sec. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE

This act shall take effect July 1, 2000.

Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as recommended by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, et al? Rep. Little of Shelburne demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.

Recess

At three o'clock and thirty-five minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker declared a recess until four o'clock and forty-five minutes in the afternoon.

At four o'clock and forty-five minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order.

Pending the call of the roll, Reps. Starr of Troy and Schiavone of Shelburne moved that the House substitute an amendment for the amendment offered by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, as follows:

By striking all after the enacting clause and by inserting in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 1. ADVISORY REFERENDUM

There shall be submitted to the voters of the State of Vermont, on a ballot prepared by the Secretary of State at the General Election in November 2000, the questions:

Shall the General Assembly amend the laws of the state to allow couples of the same sex to marry?

Shall the General Assembly provide under the laws of the state for a domestic partnership under which couples of the same sex may not marry but would have all the benefits, privileges and responsibilities as married couples?

Shall the General Assembly initiate an amendment to the Vermont Constitution providing that marriage may be only between one man and one woman?

Pending the question, Shall the House substitute an amendment for the amendment offered by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, et al? Rep. Schiavone of Shelburne demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the House substitute an amendment for the amendment offered by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, et al? was decided in the negative. Yeas, 56. Nays, 91.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allard of St. Albans Town

Angell of Randolph

Baker of West Rutland

Barney of Highgate

Brown of Walden

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Cleland of Northfield

Crawford of Burke

DePoy of Rutland

Deuel of West Rutland

Flory of Pittsford

Freed of Dorset

Gervais of Enosburg

Gray of Barre Town

Hathaway of Barton

Helm of Castleton

Holmes of Bethel

Houston of Ferrisburgh

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

Hyde of Fayston

Johnson of Canaan

Krasnow of Charlotte

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

Lehman of Hartford

Maslack of Poultney

Mazur of South Burlington

Metzger of Milton

Morrissey of Bennington

Mullin of Rutland Town

Neiman of Georgia

O'Donnell of Vernon

Palmer of Pownal

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pembroke of Bennington

Pike of Mendon

Quaid of Williston

Randall of Bradford

Robb of Swanton

Rogers of Castleton

Schiavone of Shelburne

Sheltra of Derby

Sherman of St. Johnsbury

Smith of New Haven

Starr of Troy

Steele of Waterbury

Sweetser of Essex

Towne of Berlin

Valsangiacomo of Barre City

Waite of Pawlet

Willett of St. Albans City

Winters of Williamstown

Wood of Brandon

Young of Orwell

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alfano of Calais

Anderson of Woodstock

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Barbieri of Wallingford

Blanchard of Essex

Bouricius of Burlington

Bristol of Brattleboro

Brooks of Montpelier

Buckland of Newport Town

Carmolli of Rutland City

Colvin of Bennington

Corren of Burlington

Costello of Brattleboro

Cross of Winooski

Dakin of Colchester

Darrow of Newfane

Darrow of Dummerston

Deen of Westminster

Dominick of Starksboro

Doyle of Richmond

Edwards of Swanton

Emmons of Springfield

Flaherty of South Burlington

Follett of Springfield

Fox of Essex

Fyfe of Newport City

Ginevan of Middlebury

Gretkowski of Burlington

Heath of Westford

Hingtgen of Burlington

Hooker of Rutland City

Hummel of Underhill

Jordan of Middlesex

Kainen of Hartford

Keenan of St. Albans City

Kehler of Pomfret

Kinsey of Craftsbury

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Koch of Barre Town

Krawczyk of Bennington

Kreitzer of Rutland City

LaBarge of Grand Isle

Lafayette of Burlington

Levin of Hartland

Lippert of Hinesburg

Little of Shelburne

Livingston of Manchester

Mackinnon of Sharon

Mallary of Brookfield

Marron of Stowe

Masland of Thetford

Mazzariello of Rutland City

McGrath of Ferrisburgh

McNamara of Burlington

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Milne of Washington

Molloy of Arlington

Nitka of Ludlow

Nuovo of Middlebury

Osman of Plainfield

Paquin of Fairfax

Parizo of Essex

Partridge of Windham

Perry of Richford

Poirier of Barre City

Postman of Brownington

Pugh of South Burlington

Richardson of Weathersfield

Rivero of Milton

Rusten of Halifax

Schaefer of Colchester

Seibert of Norwich

Severance of Colchester

Smith of Sudbury

Stevens of Newbury

Suchmann of Chester

Sullivan of Burlington

Sweaney of Windsor

Symington of Jericho

Tracy of Burlington

Vincent of Waterbury

Vinton of Colchester

Voyer of Morristown

Weiss of Northfield

Westman of Cambridge

Wheeler of Burlington

Wisell of Bristol

Woodward of Johnson

Zuckerman of Burlington

Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:

Bourdeau of Hyde Park

Hoag of Woodford

The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the recurring question, Shall the bill as amended, as recommended by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, et al? was decided in the negative. Yeas, 29. Nays, 118.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allard of St. Albans Town

Angell of Randolph

Barney of Highgate

Cleland of Northfield

Colvin of Bennington

Flory of Pittsford

Follett of Springfield

Freed of Dorset

Gray of Barre Town

Houston of Ferrisburgh

Howrigan of Fairfield

Koch of Barre Town

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Maslack of Poultney

Mazur of South Burlington

Metzger of Milton

O'Donnell of Vernon

Palmer of Pownal

Quaid of Williston

Richardson of Weathersfield

Schaefer of Colchester

Schiavone of Shelburne

Starr of Troy

Valsangiacomo of Barre City

Willett of St. Albans City

Winters of Williamstown

Wood of Brandon

Young of Orwell

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alfano of Calais

Anderson of Woodstock

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Baker of West Rutland

Barbieri of Wallingford

Blanchard of Essex

Bouricius of Burlington

Bristol of Brattleboro

Brooks of Montpelier

Brown of Walden

Buckland of Newport Town

Carmolli of Rutland City

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Corren of Burlington

Costello of Brattleboro

Crawford of Burke

Cross of Winooski

Dakin of Colchester

Darrow of Newfane

Darrow of Dummerston

Deen of Westminster

DePoy of Rutland

Deuel of West Rutland

Dominick of Starksboro

Doyle of Richmond

Edwards of Swanton

Emmons of Springfield

Flaherty of South Burlington

Fox of Essex

Fyfe of Newport City

Gervais of Enosburg

Ginevan of Middlebury

Gretkowski of Burlington

Hathaway of Barton

Heath of Westford

Helm of Castleton

Hingtgen of Burlington

Holmes of Bethel

Hooker of Rutland City

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

Hummel of Underhill

Hyde of Fayston

Johnson of Canaan

Jordan of Middlesex

Kainen of Hartford

Keenan of St. Albans City

Kehler of Pomfret

Kinsey of Craftsbury

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Krasnow of Charlotte

Kreitzer of Rutland City

LaBarge of Grand Isle

Lafayette of Burlington

Larrabee of Danville

Lehman of Hartford

Levin of Hartland

Lippert of Hinesburg

Little of Shelburne

Livingston of Manchester

Mackinnon of Sharon

Mallary of Brookfield

Marron of Stowe

Masland of Thetford

Mazzariello of Rutland City

McGrath of Ferrisburgh

McNamara of Burlington

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Milne of Washington

Molloy of Arlington

Morrissey of Bennington

Mullin of Rutland Town

Neiman of Georgia

Nitka of Ludlow

Nuovo of Middlebury

Osman of Plainfield

Paquin of Fairfax

Parizo of Essex

Partridge of Windham

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pembroke of Bennington

Perry of Richford

Pike of Mendon

Poirier of Barre City

Postman of Brownington

Pugh of South Burlington

Randall of Bradford

Rivero of Milton

Robb of Swanton

Rogers of Castleton

Rusten of Halifax

Seibert of Norwich

Severance of Colchester

Sheltra of Derby

Sherman of St. Johnsbury

Smith of New Haven

Smith of Sudbury

Steele of Waterbury

Stevens of Newbury

Suchmann of Chester

Sullivan of Burlington

Sweaney of Windsor

Sweetser of Essex

Symington of Jericho

Towne of Berlin

Tracy of Burlington

Vincent of Waterbury

Vinton of Colchester

Voyer of Morristown

Waite of Pawlet

Weiss of Northfield

Westman of Cambridge

Wheeler of Burlington

Wisell of Bristol

Woodward of Johnson

Zuckerman of Burlington

Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:

Bourdeau of Hyde Park

Hoag of Woodford

Rep. Metzger of Milton explained his vote as follows:

"Mr. Speaker:

I voted for the Flory amendment because if comes the closest to ending discrimination of all people under our marriage laws, additionally, and more importantly, it does so in such a time frame to lessen nature of such a momentous change.

I am a community leader in Milton and I told the people of my district two months ago what kind of legislation I would support on this issue. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am doing today. Damn the Supreme Court, I'm not going to tear this state apart."

Remarks Journalized

On motion of Rep. Milne of Washington, remarks by Rep. Lippert of Hinesburg were ordered printed in the Journal.

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Flory's strike-all amendment she indicates is designed in part to remove "sexual activity" from the bill. At the same time, Representative Flory's strike-all amendment, unlike the bill of the House Judiciary Committee, fails to acknowledge that there has been discrimination and inequity toward gay and lesbian couples, currently or historically.

I think it's important to put a face on this. I think it's important to ask who it is that we're talking about; who it is that we've been discussing. I've had the privilege in my own life of coming to the process - through a struggle at times - the process of coming to identify myself as a gay man. I've had the privilege of developing a deep, devoted, loving, caring relationship with another man. I think it's very important as we listen, as we debate and as we make decisions that you understand what the reality is about gay and lesbian people, gay and lesbian couples.

Our mailboxes have been filled with letter after letter talking about abomination, talking about sinfulness, talking about judgment day coming soon. I'm here to tell you that gay and lesbian people and gay and lesbian couples deserve not only rights, they deserve to be celebrated. Our lives, in the midst of historic prejudice and historic discrimination, are to my view, in some ways, miracles.

Think what kind of relationship you would try to establish and how successful it would be to find a loving, committed partner in an environment where you have been barraged on a daily basis, from birth, saying you are sinful or wrong, that something is fundamentally flawed in your nature. It is, in truth, the goodness of gay and lesbian people and of gay and lesbian couples that is a triumph, is a triumph, against discrimination and prejudice. We are not a threat. We are not a threat to traditional marriage. We're not a threat to your communities. We are, in fact, an asset. We deserve to be welcomed, because in fact we are your neighbors; we are your friends; indeed, we are your family.

Numbers of people here have come up and talked to me privately about their gay brother, or lesbian sister, or their child, or their uncle. Part of those conversations are private, at times, because in fact prejudice and discrimination continues to exist in this society. Not everyone feels, even with the laws we have on our books now, not everyone feels able to say with openness and with pride, "Yes, my family member is a gay man or a lesbian woman."

We have made incredible progress in Vermont. And, up until the last two and a half months I would have said, Vermont has more progress than any other state in this country. I have proudly said that. Our nondiscrimination laws, our hate crimes laws, our adoption laws, they all make us proud.

There remains afoot in Vermont prejudice against gay men and lesbians. In the last two and a half months I have seen and I have heard, I have been called names in this Chamber, in this building, the likes of which I have never experienced in my life - my personal life or my political life. And, I've watched come true what I have always known to be true, that those who stand beside gay and lesbian people as their allies, as people who are going to stand up and say, "Yes, this is wrong," and "Yes, there should be rights," they get targeted too. Because, for some people the hate runs that deep, the prejudice runs that far. I've watched while members of my committee have made brave political decisions to support equality for gay and lesbian people, for gay and lesbian couples and rights for us, and I have watched them be attacked. I have stood there and listened while they have been threatened personally and politically, and I've had members of my committee say, "I couldn't sleep at night; I've had knots in my stomach." I wouldn't have wished this on any of them, but I am deeply appreciative of the work of my committee members who listened, who struggled, came to hard reached decisions that it's the right thing to do.

Passing the bill that the House Judiciary Committee has brought forward will not end discrimination. It will not end prejudice. It will not end hate, but it will grant rights. We argue about whether they are civil rights or other rights, but I'll tell you this, they are rights that I don't have right now and most everyone else in this Chamber does. There's something strange about sitting in the midst of a deliberative body that is trying to decide whether I and my fellow gay and lesbian Vermonters should get our rights now; should we wait a little longer; should we ask all the people whether or not we deserve to have those rights.

Who are we? We are committed, caring, loving individuals in a time when desire for greater commitment, greater love, greater fidelity is needed in our society, and I find it so ironic that rather than being embraced and welcomed we are seen as a threat. We are people, some of us, that in recent times endured the scourge of a terrible epidemic, and even in the midst of that epidemic have reached out and formed relationships, cared for each other, holding each other, sometimes as death has arrived. Don't tell me about what a committed relationship is and isn't. I've watched my gay brothers care for each other deeply and my lesbian sisters nurse and care. There is no love and no commitment any greater than what I've seen, what I know.

Our relationships deserve every protection that our bill would grant. Our relationships deserve those rights, those protections. We don't need to study it any longer. We don't need to put it off and let someone else decide. We have a historic opportunity, and I ask us to put aside this amendment, which I trust is well intentioned, but I think flawed. I ask you to put aside the rest of these amendments as well. Let us move forward putting into law a bill that will set aside traditional marriage in order to meet the needs of those who somehow feel threatened, but will find a way through this thicket and will grant rights, will give a message to our community that it is time to take another piece of the hatred and the discrimination and the prejudice and remove it, and at the same time give an affirmation to our community about what it means to have full inclusivity, to embrace our neighbors, to affirm committed, loving relationships and to affirm our common humanity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Reps. Corren of Burlington and Deen of Westminster moved to amend the bill, as follows:

By striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT

The General Assembly finds that it is necessary to amend the existing state marriage statutes in light of the Vermont Supreme Court's holding in Baker v. State. The Court has determined that Vermont's current system of conferring benefits and privileges to certain persons who may marry under state law, but denying those benefits and privileges to others without a reasonable and just basis, is a violation of the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution which this Legislature must remedy, and that the state is required to confer to gay and lesbian couples the common benefits and privileges that are derived from civil marriage under state law.

Sec. 2. 15 V.S.A. § 1 is amended to read:

§ 1. *[MAN FORBIDDEN TO MARRY RELATIVES]* VALIDITY OF

MARRIAGE

*[A man shall not marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister ]*Marriages contracted by two persons are valid without regard to the gender of either party, provided that the parties meet the marriage requirements set forth in this chapter and chapter 105 of Title 18.

Sec. 3. 15 V.S.A. § 2 is amended to read:

§ 2. *[WOMAN]* PERSON FORBIDDEN TO MARRY RELATIVES

(a) A woman shall not marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, *[or]* mother's brother, mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister.

(b) A man shall not marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother or mother's brother.

Sec. 4. 15 V.S.A. § 4 is amended to read:

§ 4. MARRIAGE CONTRACTED WHILE ONE IN FORCE

Marriages contracted while either party *[has another wife or husband]* is married to another living party shall be void.

Sec. 5. 15 V.S.A. § 6 is amended to read:

§ 6. MARRIAGE VOID IN STATE OF RESIDENCE

A marriage *[shall not be]* contracted in this state by a person residing and intending to continue to reside in another state or jurisdiction*[, if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other state or jurisdiction. Every marriage solemnized in this state in violation of this section]* shall be *[null and void]* valid.

Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as recommended by Reps. Corren of Burlington and Deen of Westminster? Rep. Corren of Burlington demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as recommended by Reps. Corren of Burlington and Deen of Westminster? was decided in the negative. Yeas, 22. Nays, 125.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alfano of Calais

Bouricius of Burlington

Bristol of Brattleboro

Corren of Burlington

Darrow of Newfane

Darrow of Dummerston

Deen of Westminster

Hingtgen of Burlington

Jordan of Middlesex

Krasnow of Charlotte

Lafayette of Burlington

Mackinnon of Sharon

Nuovo of Middlebury

Osman of Plainfield

Pugh of South Burlington

Randall of Bradford

Seibert of Norwich

Sullivan of Burlington

Sweaney of Windsor

Symington of Jericho

Tracy of Burlington

Zuckerman of Burlington

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allard of St. Albans Town

Anderson of Woodstock

Angell of Randolph

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Baker of West Rutland

Barbieri of Wallingford

Barney of Highgate

Blanchard of Essex

Brooks of Montpelier

Brown of Walden

Buckland of Newport Town

Carmolli of Rutland City

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Cleland of Northfield

Colvin of Bennington

Costello of Brattleboro

Crawford of Burke

Cross of Winooski

Dakin of Colchester

DePoy of Rutland

Deuel of West Rutland

Dominick of Starksboro

Doyle of Richmond

Edwards of Swanton

Emmons of Springfield

Flaherty of South Burlington

Flory of Pittsford

Follett of Springfield

Fox of Essex

Freed of Dorset

Fyfe of Newport City

Gervais of Enosburg

Ginevan of Middlebury

Gray of Barre Town

Gretkowski of Burlington

Hathaway of Barton

Heath of Westford

Helm of Castleton

Holmes of Bethel

Hooker of Rutland City

Houston of Ferrisburgh

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

Hummel of Underhill

Hyde of Fayston

Johnson of Canaan

Kainen of Hartford

Keenan of St. Albans City

Kehler of Pomfret

Kinsey of Craftsbury

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Koch of Barre Town

Krawczyk of Bennington

Kreitzer of Rutland City

LaBarge of Grand Isle

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

Lehman of Hartford

Levin of Hartland

Lippert of Hinesburg

Little of Shelburne

Livingston of Manchester

Mallary of Brookfield

Marron of Stowe

Maslack of Poultney

Masland of Thetford

Mazur of South Burlington

Mazzariello of Rutland City

McGrath of Ferrisburgh

McNamara of Burlington

Metzger of Milton

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Milne of Washington

Molloy of Arlington

Morrissey of Bennington

Mullin of Rutland Town

Neiman of Georgia

Nitka of Ludlow

O'Donnell of Vernon

Palmer of Pownal

Paquin of Fairfax

Parizo of Essex

Partridge of Windham

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pembroke of Bennington

Perry of Richford

Pike of Mendon

Poirier of Barre City

Postman of Brownington

Quaid of Williston

Richardson of Weathersfield

Rivero of Milton

Robb of Swanton

Rogers of Castleton

Rusten of Halifax

Schaefer of Colchester

Schiavone of Shelburne

Severance of Colchester

Sheltra of Derby

Sherman of St. Johnsbury

Smith of New Haven

Smith of Sudbury

Starr of Troy

Steele of Waterbury

Stevens of Newbury

Suchmann of Chester

Sweetser of Essex

Towne of Berlin

Valsangiacomo of Barre City

Vincent of Waterbury

Vinton of Colchester

Voyer of Morristown

Waite of Pawlet

Weiss of Northfield

Westman of Cambridge

Wheeler of Burlington

Willett of St. Albans City

Winters of Williamstown

Wisell of Bristol

Wood of Brandon

Woodward of Johnson

Young of Orwell

Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:

Bourdeau of Hyde Park

Hoag of Woodford

Rep. Randall of Bradford explained his vote as follows:

"Mr. Speaker:

Quack. Quack."

Rep. Deuel of West Rutland explained his vote as follows:

"Mr. Speaker:

Two things are needed before this bill should pass. The first is an overwhelming vote against same sex-marriage, which we now have and the second is to take the Judiciary plans on the road and explain it to Vermonters."

Rep. Suchmann of Chester explained his vote as follows:

"Mr. Speaker:

I support this amendment enthusiastically, without qualification.

To me, it represents an appropriate response, not only to the court's decision - but more importantly, to the requirements of my conscience.

But my vote was "no" because I have come to realize that the people of Vermont are not yet ready to share the blessings of marriage with couples of the same gender.

This includes an overwhelming majority of my own constituents to whom the word "marriage" has a very special meaning.

Edmund Burke instructs me that I owe these people the benefits of my judgment, but he also adds that it is my duty, above all, to prefer the people's interest to my own."

And that is what my vote reflects.

Thank you Mr. Speaker."

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Perry of Richford moved to amend the bill, as follows:

First: In Sec. 1, page 4, line 14, subdivision (11), after the words: "opposite-sex couples" by adding the following: "who are not blood-relatives" and by striking the following: "same-sex" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "other"; and in the last sentence, by striking the following: "As held in Baker v. State, the" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "The" and by adding after the word "heterosexual" the following: ", nonrelated"

Second: In Sec. 1, page 5, lines 1 and 2, subdivision (13), by striking the following: "same-sex" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "eligible"

Third: In Sec. 1, page 5, lines 6 and 7, subdivision (14), by striking the following: "same-sex" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "eligible"

Fourth: In Sec. 1, page 5, subdivision (15), by striking the last sentence in its entirety

Fifth: In Sec. 1, page 5, line 20, subdivision (16), by striking the following: "same-sex" and inserting after the word "couples" the following: "who are not eligible to marry"

Sixth: In Sec. 2, page 6, line 4, subsection (a), by striking the following: "same-sex" ; and on line 10, subsection (b), by striking the following "blood-relatives" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "couples"

Seventh: In Sec. 3, page 7, line 11, subdivision (2), by adding after the words "same sex" the following: "or blood-relatives"

Eighth: In Sec. 3, page 7, by striking statutory section 15 V.S.A. § 1203 in its entirety and renumbering the remaining sections to be numerically correct

Ninth: In Sec. 26, page 31, line 20, by adding after the words "provide two" the word "eligible" and after the word "persons" by striking the following: "who are blood-relatives"

Tenth: In Sec. 26, page 33, lines 12 through 14, by striking subdivision (3) in its entirety, and by renumbering subdivision (4) to be subdivision (3)

Eleventh: In Sec. 36, page 41, line 16, by striking the following "same-sex"

Which was decided in the negative on a Division vote. Yeas, 16. Nays, 98.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Schiavone of Shelburne demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? was decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 79. Nays, 68.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alfano of Calais

Anderson of Woodstock

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Barbieri of Wallingford

Bouricius of Burlington

Bristol of Brattleboro

Brooks of Montpelier

Carmolli of Rutland City

Corren of Burlington

Costello of Brattleboro

Cross of Winooski

Dakin of Colchester

Darrow of Newfane

Darrow of Dummerston

Deen of Westminster

Dominick of Starksboro

Doyle of Richmond

Edwards of Swanton

Emmons of Springfield

Flaherty of South Burlington

Fox of Essex

Fyfe of Newport City

Ginevan of Middlebury

Heath of Westford

Hingtgen of Burlington

Hooker of Rutland City

Hummel of Underhill

Hyde of Fayston

Jordan of Middlesex

Kainen of Hartford

Keenan of St. Albans City

Kehler of Pomfret

Kinsey of Craftsbury

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Krasnow of Charlotte

Kreitzer of Rutland City

Lafayette of Burlington

Lehman of Hartford

Levin of Hartland

Lippert of Hinesburg

Little of Shelburne

Livingston of Manchester

Mallary of Brookfield

Marron of Stowe

Masland of Thetford

Mazzariello of Rutland City

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Milne of Washington

Nitka of Ludlow

Nuovo of Middlebury

Osman of Plainfield

Paquin of Fairfax

Parizo of Essex

Partridge of Windham

Perry of Richford

Poirier of Barre City

Postman of Brownington

Pugh of South Burlington

Rivero of Milton

Rusten of Halifax

Seibert of Norwich

Severance of Colchester

Smith of Sudbury

Stevens of Newbury

Suchmann of Chester

Sullivan of Burlington

Sweaney of Windsor

Symington of Jericho

Tracy of Burlington

Vincent of Waterbury

Vinton of Colchester

Voyer of Morristown

Weiss of Northfield

Wheeler of Burlington

Wisell of Bristol

Woodward of Johnson

Zuckerman of Burlington

Rep. Metzger of Milton explained his vote as follows:

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allard of St. Albans Town

Angell of Randolph

Baker of West Rutland

Barney of Highgate

Blanchard of Essex

Brown of Walden

Buckland of Newport Town

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Cleland of Northfield

Colvin of Bennington

Crawford of Burke

DePoy of Rutland

Deuel of West Rutland

Flory of Pittsford

Follett of Springfield

Freed of Dorset

Gervais of Enosburg

Gray of Barre Town

Gretkowski of Burlington

Hathaway of Barton

Helm of Castleton

Holmes of Bethel

Houston of Ferrisburgh

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

Johnson of Canaan

Koch of Barre Town

Krawczyk of Bennington

LaBarge of Grand Isle

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

Mackinnon of Sharon

Maslack of Poultney

Mazur of South Burlington

McGrath of Ferrisburgh

McNamara of Burlington

Metzger of Milton

Molloy of Arlington

Morrissey of Bennington

Mullin of Rutland Town

Neiman of Georgia

O'Donnell of Vernon

Palmer of Pownal

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pembroke of Bennington

Pike of Mendon

Quaid of Williston

Randall of Bradford

Richardson of Weathersfield

Robb of Swanton

Rogers of Castleton

Schaefer of Colchester

Schiavone of Shelburne

Sheltra of Derby

Sherman of St. Johnsbury

Smith of New Haven

Starr of Troy

Steele of Waterbury

Sweetser of Essex

Towne of Berlin

Valsangiacomo of Barre City

Waite of Pawlet

Westman of Cambridge

Willett of St. Albans City

Winters of Williamstown

Wood of Brandon

Young of Orwell

Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:

Bourdeau of Hyde Park

Hoag of Woodford

Rep. Metzger of Milton explained his vote as follows:

"Mr. Speaker:

We are in this predicament today because according to the Supreme Court we haven't granted the common benefit protection and security of marriage to all citizens of our state.

This bill "An act relating to civil unions" still leaves many Vermonters unprotected and without the benefits afforded others in our society."

I am also appalled that a member of this body is running a dollar-a-guess vote on the final outcome of this important issue. I am ashamed of all the members taking part and I am concerned of the impact on the final vote."

Rep. Perry of Richford explained his vote as follows:

"Mr. Speaker:

This bill is not my idea of what should become the law of our state. I believe we are capable of better, but not in the time available.

My vote in favor of third reading is more a vote of confidence in our House Judiciary committee than one of courage or conscience. I hope the Senate will match their dedicated, thoughtful approach.

Time will tell."

Rep. Winters of Williamstown explained his vote as follows:

"Mr. Speaker:

This is the first time in my six years here that I have felt compelled to explain my vote. Mr. Speaker, I have spent over sixty years in this state and I hope my grandchildren will be raised here. But, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to think that they may be raised in a state that considers homosexuality as moral and normal."

Adjournment

At nine o'clock and thirty minutes in the evening, on motion of Rep. Fyfe of Newport City, the House adjourned until tomorrow at nine o'clock and thirty minutes in the forenoon.