[eat 0 ‘SW Out in the Mountains VERMONT'S NEWSPAPER FOR LESBIANS, GAY MEN, AND BISEXUALS Volume VIII, Number 3 Adoption Reform Hearings Deborah Lashman On Thursday March 25th, the Senate Health and Welfare Committee held the first public hearings on legislation pro- posed by the Adoption Reform Task Force. Chaired by Senator Jan Baccus, the committee heard testimony from over 50 people on a variety of issues. Other mem- bers of the Committee are Helen Riehle, Peter Shurrilin, Sam Hudson and Susan Sweetser. Most of the testimony con- cerned provisions for “open” adoptions, counseling for birth mothers considering giving up their child for adoption and a waiting period after making that decision. Of particular interest to the gay and les- bian community is langniage in the pro- posed legislation that would make it il- legal for two unmarried people to jointly adopt a child. Six people, gay and straight, testified against that language, pointing out that the institution of marriage is no guarantee of a good home. Only one per- son testified in favor of the language, Mi- chele Morin, a member of the Adoption Reform Task Force and of Vermont Right to Life (an anti-choice organization). Con- trary to other testimony and to numerous studies, she said the only stable situation in which to raise children is one in which the parents are married. Also of concern a change in language saying that the “best available option” should be used. In past the language has been to consider the best ‘interests of the child” in de- termrningwho shall adopt. Following consideration by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, the leg- islation will go to the Senate Judiciary Committee. After that it will be reviewed by House Committees and any differences will be worked out in conference. A final blll will not come before the legislature until next year. V Proposed in Montpelier Paul Olsen In response to the broadening social defini- tion of family, laridriiark legislation that would have recognized domestic partners was proposed in Montpelier. While some cit- ies and municipalities have domestic partner- ship ordinances, if passed, Vermont would have become the first state in the nation to recognize life partners. As both bills ad- dressing domestic partrierships failed to make crossover neither will become law this session. However, a discussion of both bills is appropriate to prepare for legislative de- bate in the future. H.248 and H.471 both called for the recogni- tion of domestic partrierships. Introduced by Burlington Representatives Sandy Baird, Thomas Fleury, and Mary Sullivan, and Richmond Representative Gary Bressor, H.248 would have required that municipal clerks record same sex and opposite sex do- mestic partnerships. To qualify as domestic partners, when filing a statement of domestic partnership, couples must declare under pen- alty of perjury that they are not related by blood, are not married, are competent to en- ter a contract, share a primary residence, are age 18 or older, are responsible for each oth- er’s welfare, and that neither person has de- clared that he or she has a different partner. Representative Sandy Baird explained that H.248 was introduced to address hetero- sexual privilege attained through marriage and to honor Ron Squires who originally drafted the bill. According to Representative Dean Coiren, H.471 (introduced by Burling- ton Representatives Teny Bouricius, Nancy Chioffi, and Corren) was modeled after Hol- lywood’s domestic partnership ordinance and was intended to create a registration pro- cess that would ultimately treat domestic partnerships the same as marriages in all re- spects. While originally assigned to General &' Military Affairs, Representative Thomas Fleury stated that both bills are currently in the Judiciary Committee which he describes as “friendly”. ~_ r ‘._:;iMa-.V 3' Domestic Partnership Legislation .39] 6 31993 If passed, domestic has potential irnplic_r,ation§_7'_7 .1 I ployee benefits, vhimfi and the courts. H.248 specifically outlaws discrimination un the basis of a domestic partnership and calls for partner visitation rights. Representative Corren felt that H.471 was more comprehensive in that it would have amended Veirnont’s marriage statutes to. treat domestic partnerships the same as marriages. However, as an amendment to marriage statutes, questions regarding whether H.471 would have applied to same sex couples remain unanswered and appar- ently would have to be addressed through the judicial system. After passage of the gay rights bill, domestic partnership legislation is seen by many as critical to Verrnont’s lesbian and gay com- munity. Co—liaison Keith Goslant says the Vermont Coalition of Lesbians & Gay Men supports the concept of domestic partnership legislation but has concerns with both bills. “Competency to enter a contract” requires a higher standard of domestic partnerships compared to heterosexual marriages. Ac- cording to Goslant, the bigger question is whether lesbian and gay couples want to be treated as heterosexual married couples un- der Vermont law. On the heel of Peter Cla- velle’s mayoral defeat, Goslant was not su- prised at failure to meet crossover this session and is pleased the lesbian and gay community will now have an opportunity to fully explore this issue before it is reintro- duced in the legislature. While unique on the state level, domestic partnership legislation is sure to become in- creasingly popular in the future. Recognizing that domestic partnerships are not harmful and are qualitatively similar to marriages, domestic partnership legislation is seen by many as a first step in granti g lesbian and gay couples the econimic an personal ben- efits vital to their welfare. While it did not pass this session, introduction of both bills has begun the educational process and paved the way for passage in the future. V