Human Rights Campaign: 0&A Why was this decision signifi- cant? The Vermont Supreme Court made history by ruling that Vermont’s denial of mar- riage benefits to same-sex cou- ples violates the Vermont con- stitution. The court declared that same—sex couples in that state may not be deprived of the statutory benefits and pro- tections afforded persons of the opposite sex who choose to marry. The court’s language affirming the rights of same- sex couples was monumental. In the ruling the justices said: to extend equal rights to same- sex couples “who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal pro- Events Activities Advocacy Education Networking Buyer's Co-Op Vermont People With AIDS Coalition P.O. Box 11 Montpelier, VT 05601-0011 in Vermont 800-698-8792 or 802-229-5754 tection and security for their avowed commitment to an inti- mate and lasting relationship is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our com- mon humanity.” Did the Vermont Supreme Court case legalize same-sex marriage? The decision does not auto- matically create same-sex mar- riage rights in Vermont, but directs the state legislature to either expand marriage to cover same-sex couples, or create a distinct mechanism (domestic partnership or other) that makes available to same- sex couples all of the benefits and privileges of marriage. On what basis did the Vermont Supreme Court find that denying benefits to same-sex couples is unconsti- tutional? The Vermont Supreme Court found that limiting mar- riage benefits to opposite sex couples was in violation the Vermont constitution’s “Common Benefits Clause.” This clause says that the gov- ernment ought to be “instituted for the common benefit,,pro- tection and security of the peo- ple, nation or community, and not for the particular emolu- ment or advantage of any sin- gle person, family or set of per- sons who are part of only that community.” Can this ruling be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court? No. The decision cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court primarily because the Vermont court based its deci- sion on the “Common Benefits Clause” of the state constitu- tion, and not on the U.S. Constitution. When will the Vermont State Legislature take up the issue and will they legislate same- sex marriage or create a par- allel system of benefits such as domestic partnerships? The Supreme Court instruct- ed the Vermont legislature to act in an “orderly and expedi- tious fashion” in extending all marriage benefits to same-sex couples. The Court warned the legislature that “[i]n the event that the benefits and protec- tions in question are not statu- torily granted, plaintiffs may petition this Court to order the remedy they originally sought.” The legislature will convene in January for its 2000 session, which ends in May. Following the ruling, reaction from Vermont lawmakers has been mixed. Peter Shumlin, the president pro tempore of the Vermont Senate told the New York Times that he expected it would be much easier to get votes for a domestic partner- ship law than one creating full- fledged marriages, but “both are strong possibilities.” Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) told the New York Times that he thought the legislature would pass a domestic partner- ship law. On CNN, Gov. Dean indicated that the Vermont state legislature would not pass a same-sex marriage bill but that he would support passage of comprehensive domestic partnership legislation. According to the Associated Press, Dean said that same-sex marriage, “makes me uncom- fortable, the same as anybody else.” Vermont Attorney General William Sorell told the Elizabethcampbell CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT IluuooncuouIonicItoilet:Innocentuuuooouoononccoon 15 Wasl1i11gto11 St, Rutlancl, VT 05701 (802) 773-44030’ Elizabet@sover.11et Serving the Vermont Community Congratulations to the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force! §VPM7 WXLLEY PRINT 8Zl/IAIL - ()l,l.s'i‘I ['l‘IlllIHf..’ - l)izxl\‘iii/2l’ii1ilis/iiiig . - Qiiirlv ‘lliiviiiirziiiiil - .\1uiliiiz1.Si‘i'i‘iii:.~ . llinesl)Lii'g, Vermont - (Tull Silrilli ilt (802) -182-2.‘).‘)5 Ilruli llllltlllr‘ ( ii/Ii/iii/1 Iii-i’ [W I up .'-i ll)l liimsi l/ January2000 Out in the Mountains 5 New York Times, “it would likely be a civilly sanctioned relationship that would, for all intents and purposes, have the same benefits and protection a traditionally married couple would have but wouldn’t be called a marital relationship. They wouldn’t be called spous- es, they’d be called domestic partners, and for a number of people, that makes an enor- mous difference.” Would a domestic partnership statute truly replicate mar- nage? No. The Court is mistaken in its assertion that marriage and domestic partnership are equal. They are not. Throughout history, we have seen that separate is never equal. Domestic partnership laws are a step in the right direction but - despite the faulty assumption of the Vermont Supreme Court - domestic partnership can never fully replicate marriage. The Human Rights Campaign urges the Vermont state legislature to support same-sex marriage because it is the only way to assure that same-sex couples are treated equally under the law. If ci some-sex couple enters a domestic partnership in Vermont and then moves to another state, will their new state be required to recognize . mechanism their commitment? Probably not. Without legal- ized marriage, the recognition of same-sex couples will be subject to the laws of each individual state and the whims of their lawmakers. This status presents many practical, ethi- cal and legal problems for same-sex couples who relo- cate. if the Vermont legislature approves same-sex marriage, will these marriages be hon- ored in other states? There is currently no state that recognizes same-sex mar- riages and there are at least 30 states that have explicitly banned gay marriage. Congress, in addition, passed the “Defense of Marriage Act” which allows states to not rec- ognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and which denies Federal marital benefits to same-sex couples. Can this decision be over- turned in a right-wing led ref- erendum? No. There is no referendum in- the State of Vermont. In addition, because of procedural hurdles, it would be nearly impossible for the State legislature to amend the state Constitution as a way to moot the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision. V isa m foundation of Vermont O l' C Our Mission _ The Samara Foundation, of”/Vermont is a ‘' charitable foundation iii/hose mission is to support and strengthen Vermont's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered communities today and build an endowment for tomorrow. How 1‘o'Contact Us: 90 main street p.o. box 1263 burlington, vermont 05402-1263 p. 802-860-6236 f. 802-860-6315 info@samarafoundation.org www.samarafoundation.org