The Vermont Civil Union Review Commission met on Tuesday, August 7, 2001, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in Room 10 of the State House in Montpelier, Vermont.
The following members were present:
Stephen Reynes, Chair
Rep. William J. Lippert, Jr.
Martha Csala
Hon. Francis McCaffrey
Wendy Yoder
Staff Present:
Michele Childs, Committee Counsel
Katie Pickens, Committee AssistantThe minutes of February 14, 2001 were reviewed and approved.
Stephen Reynes distributed a copy of the duties assigned to the Vermont Civil Unions Review Commission by statute, and reviewed the document with committee members.
Michele Childs summarized the contents of updated health department tables. She briefly discussed several newspaper articles related to civil unions. Ms. Childs provided to the commission and discussed a copy of a proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment offered by the Alliance for Marriage which prohibits states from interpreting their own constitutions as requiring extension of marital benefits to same-sex couples. The amendment does not yet have congressional sponsors. Ms. Childs gave a thorough explanation of two Vermont bills; both passed by the House since the last committee meeting. She spoke to the intent of each bill and fielded questions from individual committee members. The bills are as follows:
H. 404 – Clarification of Existing Laws Concerning Marriage.
This bill proposes to explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage.
H. 502– Domestic Relations; Civil Unions; Repeal; Reciprocal Partnerships
This bill proposes to replace civil unions with a new system of reciprocal partnerships, which would provide the benefits and protections of marriage to couples who are not eligible to marry. To be entitled to the same benefits and protections afforded to married couples, including access to family court, couples seeking a reciprocal partnership must register their relationship with the Vt. Department of Health. Reciprocal beneficiary relationships would be repealed, and the Vermont Civil Union Review Commission would be disbanded.
Mary Bonauto, legal counsel with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) spoke via phone to the commission. Ms. Bonauto discussed anecdotal information she has received from couples who have obtained a civil union in Vermont. She reported that overall, the news was good, and couples who have established a civil union do not seem to be experiencing any particular problems. She said that she has heard of couples using the civil union certificate to obtain legal name changes to reflect their new status and to obtain insurance coverage from employers.
Ms. Bonauto told the commission that five states including Rhode Island, Connecticut, Washington, Hawaii and California had introduced legislation regarding civil unions. There have been no votes on the legislation in committee to date. A ballot initiative process had begun in Maine. The Christian Civic League is gathering signatures to place a question on the November 2002 ballot which would prevent recognition of civil unions in that state. A group called Massachusetts for Marriage has filed with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office its intent to seek a constitutional amendment also prohibiting civil unions.
Ms. Bonauto briefed the commission on litigation in Massachusetts involving same-sex couples who are seeking the right to marry under Massachusetts's law (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health). The case is pending and awaiting arguments. She also reviewed facts about a Georgia case involving whether the state would recognize a civil union as a marriage for purposes of a child custody agreement (Burns v. Burns). The Georgia Superior Court ruled that a woman’s civil union partner did not qualify as a spouse under the previously adopted custody agreement. The case has been appealed. Several Vermont legislators who are opposed to civil unions have filed a friend of the court brief with the appellate court agreeing with the lower court ruling, asserting that civil unions are clearly not marriages under Vermont law.
After Ms. Bonauto’s testimony, the commission discussed how it would like to plan the fall schedule and the issues to be discussed. The commission tentatively agreed it would meet at least three more times in 2001. The September meeting will focus on reciprocal beneficiaries' relationships and whether the benefits should be expended and the pool of applicants enlarged. In October, the commission would like to hear from the court, as well as couples who have established civil unions. In November, the commission hopes to review the information it has gathered this year and to discuss a direction for the annual report due to the legislature. Ms. Childs will be contacting state agencies in order to identify whether there are any pressing issues or problems that the agencies have discovered regarding implementation of the civil union law.
The next meetings of the Commission will be September 11 or 18, 2001, in Room 10 of the State House, the exact date to be determined at a later time.
Respectfully submitted,
Michele Childs
Legislative Counsel