Vermont Civil Union Commission

Minutes

February 14, 2001

The Vermont Civil Union Review Commission met on Wednesday, February 14, 2001, beginning at 1:30 p.m. in Room 10 of the State House in Montpelier, Vermont.

The following members were present:

Mary P. Kehoe, Vice Chair
Rep. William J. Lippert, Jr.
Annette Cappy
Rep. Thomas Little
Martha Csala
Hon. Francis McCaffrey

Staff Present:

Michele Childs, Committee Counsel
Katie Pickens, Committee Assistant

In the absence of the chair, Steven Reynes, Mary Kehoe served as acting chair and called the meeting to order. The minutes of November 15, 2000 were reviewed. On motion by Martha Csala, the minutes were unanimously approved.

Michele Childs was asked to bring committee members up-to-date regarding pending legislation relating to civil unions. Michele distributed copies of five House bills and two Senate bills currently under consideration by the general assembly. She spoke to the intent of each bill and fielded questions from individual committee members.

H. 83 – Domestic relations; civil unions; repeal and void

This bill proposes to repeal Act 91, an act relating to civil unions, and void all civil unions and reciprocal beneficiary relationships established pursuant to the act.

H. 194 – Domestic relations; civil unions; residency

This bill proposes that a person who resides and intends to continue to reside in another state or jurisdiction may not establish a civil union in Vermont if the civil union would be void if contracted in such other state or jurisdiction.

H. 259 – Education; course of study; instruction about homosexuality

This bill proposes to prohibit an employee of a school district from encouraging, promoting or sanctioning homosexual conduct.

H. 261 – Domestic relations; marriage

This bill proposes to clarify existing law concerning marriage by adding an explicit prohibition against same-sex marriage and banning recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state or jurisdiction.

H. 274 – Domestic relations; civil unions, certification

This bill proposes to allow judges and justices of the peace to decline to perform either a marriage solemnization or a civil union certification based upon a conscientious or moral obligations.

S. 55 – Domestic relations; civil unions; certification

This bill proposes to allow justices of the peace the discretion of whether or not to perform civil union certifications.

S.76 – Domestic relations, civil unions; repeal; contracted benefits

This bill proposes to replace civil unions with a new system of domestic partnerships which would, through a contract entered into by the parties, provide the benefits and protections of marriage to nonrelated same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Couples could register their contracted relationship with the department of health, and would be entitled to the same benefits and protections afforded to married couples, including access to family court. Reciprocal beneficiary relationships would be repealed, and the Vermont civil union review commission would be disbanded.

During committee discussion the following issues were discussed:

§ Are any states considering legislation to enact a system of civil unions or similar relationship? Members believe bills to be in the works in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Ms. Childs will follow up on this.

§ Representative Lippert asked that someone from the department of tourism and marketing address the committee as to whether the agency has ascertained any positive economic impact for Vermont due to civil unions.

During the public testimony portion of the meeting, Brian Pearl, a resident of Grand Isle, spoke out regarding his concern that Health Department tables found in the recently published Civil Union Review Commission Report, seemed to indicate that some minors may be entering into civil unions. Michele explained that in one case, the current date was put in the space for date of birth on the Health Department civil union forms. When the current date was included in the aggregate dates of birth, it skewed the Department of Health statistics. To the committee’s knowledge no person under the age of 18 has entered into a civil union and if they had, it would not be valid because the statute provides that a person must be 18 years old to establish a civil union.

The next meeting of the Commission will be scheduled after the current Legislative Session is over, the exact date to be determined at a later time.

Respectfully submitted,

Michele Childs

Legislative Counsel