20 | Out in the Mountains |May 2000 Senate Judiciary Committee Alters H.847 continued from page 5 House bill, H.847, with a few relatively minor changes from the Senate Judiciary Committee, to the third and final reading, on April 19, where it received final approval from the upper house by the same margin. Opponents of the measure had no better success in their attempts to amend the state constitution on the first day of debate. The first amendment would have enshrined in the state Constitution the defini- tion of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The second would have over- turned the Supreme Court rul- ing in the Baker case. Neither amendment won a simple majority, let alone the two- thirds required for constitu- tional amendments. “I believe their sexual ori- entation runs counter to nature al law,” Senator John Crowley, R-West Rutland, said of same- sex couples as he argued for the marriage definition. He stated repeatedly that if he could be convinced that homo- sexuality was not a choice, he would support legislation pro- tecting their rights “and then some, for all they have endured.” McCormack responded, “Choice or not is not the issue. We can choose our religions, but it is illegal to discriminate based on that choice.” Senate llpproves Civil Union Legislation continued from page 5 Insurance, Securities, and Health Care Administration. She said her department would require at least four months to “develop and adopt rules ensuring that insurance con- tracts and policies offered to married couples, spouses, and families are made available to parities to a civil union and their families.” The committee also consid- ered adding a residency requirement to civil unions to address concerns of some sen- ators about strain on the Vermont family court system. The fear was that non—residents would travel to Vermont to get a civil union, then be forced to F Oi?/ll‘/*9 GWE5 éfl'i’a»rni/Q3) Monday-Saturday 9-9 Sunday li-5 rankmt return to Vermont to dissolve the union, should they break up. Beth Robinson, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Baker case and president of the board of Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, addressed the pro- posed change in her March ll testimony before the commit- tee. She reminded the commit- tee that any one wishing to dis- solve a civil union would be subject to the same one-year residency requirement required in a divorce, so addi- tional strain on the courts was unlikely. She also said that the requirement would represent discrimination against non-res- Benae 518 Shelhurne Road Next to Mall189 852-0545 www.benlrank|in.baweb.com join our craft club! Multiple choices. Get discounts a. Offset Printing b. High Volume Copying c. Mailing Services ident same-sex couples that does not exist for opposite-sex couples wishing to marry. Sears asked Robinson why people would want to enter into a civil union when it was of no use in their home states. “There are people who have thirsted for equality all their lives,” she said. “They want the simple acknowledgement this would offer.” In the end, the residency requirement was not added. The bill as amended by the Senate Judiciary Committee was votedgout favorably, 4 to 2. ll itls got anythingto‘ tdofi with frames and framing,» we've got-it, d. Desktop Publishing e. All of the Above OITM is looking for photos from any Vermont Pride events for our June issue. If you'd like to see yourself and your friends in print, please send us some old photographs. attn: Photo Editor OITM PO 1078 Richmond, VT 057477 y VALLEY PRINT e«MA1L Call Sarah at 802.482.2995 - Hiriesburg, Vermont evrm