8 | Out in the Mountains. Watch 2001 o investments 0 Tax Management 0 Risk Protection 0 Domestic Partners Serving the Financial Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians At American Express Financial Advisors, we want to make our commitment to gay men and lesbians clear. Just as we have extended domestic partner benefits to all our lesbian and gay employees worldwide, it is our goal to provide sound financial advice specifically tailored for the unique issues affecting our lesbian and gay clients. Sound financial planning for: 0 Estate Planning 0 Retirement Call today for your complimentary consultation. swnsss ® Financial Advisors American Express Financial Advisors Inc. 300 Interstate Corporate Center, Suite 301 Williston, VT 05495 802.872.2775 800.267.5044 Irene Boire, Ext. 243 Chad DuBois, Ext. 209 © 1998 American Express Financial Corporation Good legal advice can make all thedifference. Langrock Sperry & Wool offers the , ' services of 22 lawyers with over 300 years combined experience in all areas of the law — including two lesbian attorneys with special expertise-serving the legal needs of the g/l/b/t/q community. SUSAN MURRAY & BETH ROBINSON With offices in Middlebury and Burlington Middlebury (802) 388-6356 Burlington (802) 864-0217 smurray@langrock.com brobinson@langro'ck.c0m Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP Arronnrrs AT l.._AVI LEGAL BRIEFS by Susan Murray and Beth Robinson Homophobia in the Courtroom With the notable exceptions of the second parent adoption case in 1993 and the “gay mar- riage” case in ‘I999, the Vermont Supreme Court has not had much opportunity to decide cases with “gay” con- tent. So when the Court writes an opinion that refers to homo- sexuality, it merits a mention in our column, even if the subject matter has nothing to do with g/l civil rights. In December, the Vermont Supreme Court decided a case called Mears v. Colvin. Charles Mears had died of smoke inhalation when a fire broke out in his apartment in Shaftsbury, Vermont. His widow, Shirley Mears, filed a lawsuit against the owners of the apartment building, claim- ing that they had caused Mr. Mears’s death because they had failed to install proper fire detectors that would have warned Charles Mears that a fire had broken out and would have given him time to escape. The lawsuit Shirley Mears filed was called a “wrongful deat ” action. Under Ver_mont’s Wrongful Death Act, the spouse and next of kin of a person whose death is caused by the wrongful or neg- ligent act of another person can sue for “such damages as are just.” These damages can include not only damages for economic loss, but also for the loss of the deceased’s love and companionship. Readers of this column will note that, prior to the passage of the civil union law, a gay man or lesbian whose partner had died as a result of the neg- ligence of another had no right to seek damages under the Wrongful Death Act; our rela- tionships were not recognized by the state, and we were there- fore considered “legal strangers,” with no right to sue. The civil union law has changed that, defining civil union partners as “spouses,” so we now have the right to sue. for damages when our partner is killed by the wrongful act of another. ' The problem for Shirley Mears was that, although she was still married to Charles Mears at the time of his death, ~ she was separated from him. Therefore, the question of whether she should be paid any damages for the loss of Mr. Mears’s “love and companion- ship” was a hotly contested issue at the trial. In determin- ing such damages, the jury is supposed to look at the spous- e_s’ physical, emotional, and psychological relationship, as well as their “living arrange- ments . . . the harmony of fam- ily relations, and the common- ality of interests and activi- ties.” In other words, the issue of Shirley and Charles Mears’ separation was a central issue at trial. The attorney for the apart- ment owner produced evidence that Shirley Mears was not only separated from her hus- band, but that she was engaged in an extramarital affair. Not content to stop there, the attor- ney probed further, eliciting testimony that Shirley Mears was having an affair with another woman. Mrs. Mears denied having a lesbian affair, and also said that she and her husband were not planning to divorce. Nevertheless, the jury decided not to award Mrs. Mears or her children any dam- ages for Charles Mears’s death. 1% 63, %°+% M 52.) V-0 (eat ~ . _ 8:90‘) fl°’Z;,> . q°,..;\« BLACKWOOD ‘red? 2% ASSq.'§I°é;'l;JI,3‘S, PC /2 blackVy_dl:w@aol.com fax: 3m_363_o262 Employment and Special Education Law, Civil Right Law, Wills and Mediation, LGBTAdapa'ons and Domestic Issues, Personal Injury Law and other litigation V Laurie S. Rosenzweig» Attorney at Law 18 South Main Street, P.O. Box 1455, Rutland, VT 05701 802-786-2251 , e-mail: Sabu234@AOL.com Real Estate, Wills &Trusts, General Practice On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court criticized the trial judge for allowing the tes- timony about the nature of Mrs. Mears’s affair. The Court said that while “some aspects of a decedent’s family relations may be relevant and admissible in a wrongful death action,” that does not mean "that all aspects of family relations are relevant and admissible. There is a line to be drawn when the potentially inflammatory nature of the information exceeds its probative value.” Specifically, the Court said that while it was proper for the defense attorney tolpresent evi- dence that Mrs. Mears was having an affair, “the addition- al evidence . . . concerning the homosexual nature of the extramarital affair was another matter. Such evidence added virtually nothing of probative value to the case. The only effect, if not indeed the pur- pose, of defense counsel’s repeated probing of the witness . . . concerning the homosexual aspect of the alleged relation- ship was to appeal to homo- phobic prejudices.” Because the Supreme Court could not abide such a blatant and repeat- ed appeal to homophobia, the Court sent the case back to the trial court for anotherjury trial. While this case illustrates the Supreme Court’s desire to rid our courtrooms of homo- phobia, it is also unfortunate that, in the early 21st century, the Supreme Court believes a jury in Vermont can still be tit- illated and prejudiced by the mere revelation of a gay or les- bian relationship; may we someday reach the point where it doesn’t matter. Susan Murray and Beth Robinson are attorneys at Langrock Sperry & Wool in Middlebury, Vermont whose practices include employment issues, family matters, estate planning, personal injury and worker is compensation cases, and general commercial and civil litigation. This column features timely information about legal issues of interest to our community. We hope to provide information about important laws and court cases that_may affect our rights, as well as practical nuts and bolts advice for protecting ourselves and our families. If you ’d like to see us cover a particular topic, please feel free to write OITM or call us at 388-6356.