Vermont Allows Benefits to Same-Sex Couples (long)

Dec 20 21:37 UTC 1999

Yay!  Woohoo!  Printed in today's Chicago Tribune.  
www.chicagotribune.com


              Vt. high court backs
              rights for gay couples 

              By Christopher Graff
              The Associated Press
              December 20, 1999 11:44 a.m. CST

              MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Gay couples must be
              granted the same benefits and protections given
              married couples of the opposite sex, the Vermont
              Supreme Court ruled today.

              The court said the Legislature will determine
              whether such benefits will come through formal
              marriage or a system of domestic partnerships.

              "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," the justices said.

              Whatever marriage or domestic partnership system
              is chosen by the Legislature, the court said, "must
              conform with the constitutional imperative to afford
              all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and
              security of the law."

              Earlier this month, Hawaii's Supreme Court slammed
              the door on gay marriages in that state, once
              considered most likely to legalize same-sex unions.
              Hawaii's high court said the issue was resolved by a
              1998 amendment to the state constitution against gay
              marriages.

              Vermont was the only other state whose top court
              was considering the issue, and today's ruling had
              been anxiously awaited by both sides in the highly
              charged debate over same sex marriages.

              Today's ruling stems from a suit filed in July 1997 by
              three couples -- one of gay men and two of lesbians
              -- after they were denied marriage licenses by their
              local town clerks. The clerks acted on the advice of
              the state attorney general, who relied on a 1975
              opinion by a predecessor calling same sex marriages
              unconstitutional.

              The three couples first filed suit in Chittenden
              County Superior Court but a judge rejected their
              claims. The couples then appealed to the Supreme
              Court, which heard arguments in the case 13 months
              ago.

              The couples argued that their inability to get married
              denied them more than 300 benefits at the state level
              and more than 1,000 at the federal level. The
              Supreme Court acknowledged that, saying the
              benefits included "access to a spouse's medical, life,
              and disability insurance, hospital visitation and other
              medical decisionmaking privileges, spousal support,
              intestate succession, homestead protections, and
              many other statutory protections."

              Today's ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S.
              Supreme Court since the Vermont court based its
              decision on the state Constitution. The Vermont
              Supreme Court is the state's only appeals court.

              The decision places the issue before the Legislature,
              which will convene next month for its 2000 session.

              Gov. Howard Dean has declined to state a position
              on same sex marriages, saying that he was awaiting
              the decision of the court. But the lieutenant
              governor, Douglas Racine, and the speaker of the
              Vermont House, Michael Obuchowski, have said
              they favor same sex marriages.

              Today's decision, written by Chief Justice Jeffrey
              Amestoy, acknowledges the controversy swirling
              around the issue of same-sex marriages. It is "a
              question that the court well knows arouses deeply
              felt religious, moral, and political beliefs," the               
              justices said in their decision.

              In 1993, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that the
              state's failure to recognize gay marriages amounted
              to gender discrimination.

              The ruling set off pre-emptive legislating around the
              nation. Lawmakers feared that gay couples would
              fly to Hawaii to get married and that the 49 other
              states would then have to recognize those marriages.

              At least 30 states banned gay marriages, and
              Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act,
              which denied federal recognition of homosexual
              marriage and allowed states to ignore same-sex
              unions licensed elsewhere.

              Advocates of same sex marriage had high hopes for
              the Vermont case because the state is considered a
              leader in laws protecting gay rights. Vermont has
              passed laws prohibiting discrimination against gays in
              employment, housing, and public accommodations
              and a law that punishes hate crimes against
              homosexuals.

              The issue divided the court. While all five justices
              agreed that gay couples should receive the same
              benefits as granted couples of the opposite sex, three
              of the justices joined a concurring opinion written by
              Justice John Dooley that challenged the reasoning
              behind Amestoy's decision.

              And Justice Denise Johnson wrote a separate
              opinion saying the court had not gone far enough.
              She said the court recognizes that gays are entitled
              to certain rights and "yet declines to give them any
              relief other than an exhortation to the Legislature to
              deal with the problem." Johnson said she would
              require town clerks to issue marriage licenses to
              same-sex couples. 

              Copyright 1999 The Associated Press 

response 2 of 56:

Jan 3 15:38 UTC 2000

I thought there was at least one country, perhaps Holland, that had something
"like that"

response 4 of 56:

Jan 5 05:24 UTC 2000

PROGRESS OF PARTNERSHIP LIST In countries listed partnership laws are in
effect or passed 
 DENMARK Population 5.2 mill. Law in effect 1 October 1989, Folketinget adopts
Registered Partnership 26 May 1989 
 NORWAY Pop. 4.3 mill. in effect 1 August 1993, Stortinget legalized
Registered Partnership 1 April 1993. 
 SWEDEN  Pop. 8.7 mill. in effect 1 January 1995, Riksdagen legalized
Registered Partnership 7 June 1994. 
 GREENLAND, DK, adopted Danish Partners Act 26 April 1996, - Nordic countries
recognized each others acts Aug. 1995. 
 HUNGARY Pop. 10.3 mill. Passed 21 May 1996 by Magyar Orszaggyules: Legal
protection of Common Law Marriage 
 ICELAND Pop. 263.000, 27 June 1996, The Icelandic Althingi voted for
"Recognized Partnership" 4 June 1996. 
 HAWAII - US State Pop. 1.2 mill. Hawaiian Legislature enacted 8 June 1997
"Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship"  
 THE NETHERLANDS Pop. 15.3 mill. In effect 1 January 1998. Passed
"Registration of Partnership" Act 9 July 1997. 
 FRANCE Pop. 55 mill. Civil Solidarity-pacts "PaCS" adopted October 13 1999:
PaCS in effect November 17 1999. 
 BELGIUM   Pop. 10 mill. Partner measure (Statutory Cohabitation Contract)
in effect the 4th January 2000 

This is a little outdated. Denmark was the first country with legal gay
marriage, though (copenhagen was where the first service was held).
  
source: http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/

response 6 of 56:

Jan 5 15:27 UTC 2000

Interesting, to see the euphemistic contortions up there....I especially like
"Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship."

response 8 of 56:

Jan 7 13:45 UTC 2000

Dan sent me this email today:

 As you probably know, the Supreme Court of Vermont recently ruled that
 committed same sex relationships should have the same rights and
 privileges afforded to married straight couples.  There are over 1,000 
 rights that come with marriage which are currently denied to gay couples

 - - including hospital visitation/medical decisions, rights of 
 survivorship, filing joint tax returns, etc.
 
 This is a VERY important first step towards equality in America.
 
 However, the Governor's office of Vermont has been BOMBARDED with phone 
 calls by anti-gay individuals opposing the recent decision - - primarily

 fueled by the "Doctor" Laura radio program which gave out the phone number.
 
 The Governor's office reports that only a HANDFUL of callers have
 expressed SUPPORT for this huge step towards equal rights.
 
 Please take the time to contact the Governor's office and register your
 support on this vital issue.
 
 Governor Howard Dean's office - (802) 828-3333 8AM-4PM.  FAX (802)
 828-3339 or e-mail the Lieutenant Governor - Douglas A. Racine at
 ltgov@leg.state.vt.us with a brief note to register your support.

response 10 of 56:

Jan 11 03:27 UTC 2000

Yeah, I can't listen to her show.  Her advice is so completely wacked.

response 12 of 56:

Jan 11 09:30 UTC 2000

I don't listen to her because I don't like her.  I was just saying that her
advice sucks.  I have NOTHING against the Commandments, either, but the point
wasn't even about this.  

I simply posted that message, didn't write it.  The reason they've been
bombarded is because a Christian radio personality gave out the number and
said she was against it.  So, this mail has been circulated to say, "Hey! 
Why don't we call up and *support* it?"  It's not an attack against Dr. Laura.

So, yes, I know how to turn a radio knob, omni.

response 14 of 56:

Jan 11 15:25 UTC 2000

She's on NPR.

response 16 of 56:

Jan 11 16:41 UTC 2000

No gray areas regarding morality? On what planet?

response 18 of 56:

Jan 11 23:48 UTC 2000

(Actually, the main thing that bugs me about Dr. Laura is her tendency towards
a black-and-white idea of morality.  I guess you don't get to be a succesful
advice person by waffling uncontrollably, but still....)

response 20 of 56:

Jan 12 20:56 UTC 2000

  That very same Bible says "Pick the mote out of your own eye before you pick
the beam from your neighbor's eye" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

  Ok she's a hypocrite. Let that be between her and God. I'm sure that He will
sort her out when her time comes. You still don't have to listen, Paul.

 re 16- In my world, things are either right or they are wrong. I don't fool
myself with all kinds of excuses about why I should do something I shouldn't.
Like I'm not going to go rob a bank just because I think I need a little
pocket change. Why should I speed on the freeway when I know that doing so
is against the law? True it hurts no one to speed, that is, unless you hit
something, but if you have control of your car, speeding is a victimless
crime. But it is still wrong to speed. I'm sure I can find a lot of people
who wil tell you that it is thier right to drive as fast as they can and that
the government has no right to tell me how fast I can drive.

response 22 of 56:

Jan 13 08:48 UTC 2000

  Changing morals is why we still need locks on banks.

response 24 of 56:

Jan 13 16:47 UTC 2000

        And not everyone is aware that they do make those situational
judgements, Sarah, or that their beliefs change over time.