VT Findings and
Recommendations
re VT CU-SSM Report
Vermont’s Report on Civil Union vs
SSM was released this afternoon and can be found at
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/WorkGroups/FamilyCommission/VCFRP_Report.pdf.
The report is 32 pages long. You will find copies of
THE COMMISSION’S
FINDINGS and the
COMMMISSION’S
RECOMMENDATIONS BELOW
The commmission’s Findings
Although the Commission did not undertake a scientific public opinion poll, the
Commission's careful listening process lays the foundation for certain findings,
or conclusions, with a strong degree of credibility. In some cases, the
findings are statements to which the witnesses testified. In other cases,
the findings are statements of fact about the legal consequences of civil unions
in Vermont.
1. Those who testified in support of
full access to marriage for gay and lesbian couples far outnumbered those who
testified in favor of maintaining the civil union status quo or against same-sex
marriage.
2. Vermonters who chose to attend the Commission's hearings on the equality of
civil unions and whether Vermont should permit same-sex marriage have strong
feelings about the issues. At first blush, this may seem obvious or
inconsequential but the Commission believes that it bears further comment.
While the civility of the hearings was evident, both “sides” continue to believe
passionately in their respective judgments and understandings.
3. Vermonters with civil union licenses testified that they are being denied the
full promise of Act 91. They have encountered a multitude and variety of
instances where they find the promise of equality to be unfulfilled. They
find many of these instances to be significant, if not substantial, deficits in
the civil union law, with clear and negative financial, economic, and social
impacts on their lives and the lives of their children and families. In
addressing the Commission's charge, these witnesses find “legal and practical
challenges [with civil union]… as compared to heterosexual marriage couples.”
4. The legal recognition of same-sex relationships varies greatly from state to
state. Eight states currently recognize a Vermont civil union, while four
states recognize a Massachusetts same-sex marriage. Recognition of these
relationships has taken the form of statute, judicial decision, and attorney
general opinion, but it has been outnumbered by the legislative and electoral
efforts to prohibit such recognition. Forty-four states and the federal
government have adopted various “Defense of Marriage” statutes, constitutional
amendments, or both to deny legal recognition to same-sex marriages. An
additional 17 states prohibit recognition of a civil union.
5. Regardless of formal recognition in some states, the legal status of parties
to a civil union is generally foreign and difficult to explain when Vermonters
travel to other states. These hurdles to the “portability” of civil unions
can be either a minor or major inconvenience but can also present more dire
consequences when the health and welfare or fundamental legal rights of a member
of a civil union couple is at stake.
6. While the testimony identified clear, significant differences between the
benefits, privileges, and responsibilities attached to a civil union versus a
heterosexual marriage,
(end page 26)
the extent to which enactment of same-sex marriage would eliminate these
differences is not clear. That is, a Vermont same-sex marriage could share
many, perhaps most, of the deficiencies of a Vermont civil union, considering
the non-recognition of both by federal law and by the laws of all but a handful
of the states. However, the Commission finds that such a change in the law
would give access to less tangible incidents of marriage, including its
terminology (e.g., marriage, wedding, married, celebration, divorce), and its
social, cultural and historical significance. This also would likely
enhance the portability of the underlying legal consequences of the status.
Further, providing statutory access to marriage would be a clearer and more
direct statement of full equality by the state, a statement of full inclusion of
its gay and lesbian residents in the bundle of rights, obligations, protections,
and responsibilities flowing from the status of civil marriage. The
tangible same-sex marriage benefits described by Beth Robinson in her testimony
and letter raise serious questions about the operation of the civil union law
and warrant additional research and serious attention.
7. As requested in the Commission's charge, we find that the basis for Vermont's
separate legal structures –- marriage and civil union –- is a combination of the
passionate, volatile political dynamics prevailing in the General Assembly in
2000 and the belief that a separate legal structure in the form of Act 91
remedied the constitutional flaw declared in the Baker v. State decision.
8. The two legal statuses have different social and historical significance.
“Marriage” evolves and carries the benefits and burdens of thousands of years of
human experience unique to a male-female social institution. The testimony
underscored why lesbian and gay couples desire access to the word “marriage,”
its current and historical meaning and significance, and how they and many
others believe that it is their constitutional right.
The testimony from the small number of persons who testified to the contrary
revealed the passion with which they wish to exclude same-sex couples from
access to this word. This testimony, in nearly every case, was based
expressly on religious beliefs and faith.
9. The social science of the relative benefits or harms of heterosexual versus
homosexual marriage for families and children is beyond the scope of the
Commission's charge. There is credible social science research supporting
the conclusion that raising children in a gay or lesbian coupled family, per se,
has no negative impacts on the wellbeing of children. As noted below, the
Commission believes that this area deserves further study.
(End page 27)
The Commission’s Recommendations
1. Areas for Additional Study and
Review.
The Commission's hearing process provided a forum around the state for
Vermonters to express their views on how the civil union law is working and on
whether Vermont should permit gay and lesbian couples access to civil marriage.
The process was a simple and straightforward one of asking Vermonters to testify
and of listening to their thoughts, views, and concerns. The Commission
took best advantage of the time available from its volunteer membership, and
while our methods were not scientific, the Commission believes this report
fairly reflects what is in the hearts and minds of Vermonters.
Nonetheless, the Commission recommends further study and review of the following
areas:
* What has been the experience of the Massachusetts lesbian and gay couples who
have married under Massachusetts law? Are these couples successfully
obtaining all of the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage –- under
Massachusetts law, federal law, and the laws of other states? Are their
marriages more readily understood and more portable than a Vermont civil union?
* Can the Vermont income tax system be revised by statute or administrative
action to ease the burden that civil union couples face in preparing and filing
their returns?
* What is the best science available today on the different impacts on children
raised in different family structures? Is there a consensus in the
research community? How should social science affect the debate over
same-sex marriage? How can the research be scrupulously and objectively
evaluated before it influences policy-making and legislative action?
* If Vermont were to move to full access to marriage for Vermont's lesbian and
gay couples, how should the state address the many civil union licenses already
issued? Should civil union status remain for those who may want it?
Should a civil union couple seeking marriage be required to waive or rescind
that license at the time of joining in civil marriage? Or should a civil
union couple's license be automatically converted by statute to a marriage
license? These are only a few of what are likely to be many such
transition questions should Vermont enact same-sex marriage.
(End page 28)
2. The Commission's charge does not ask it to make a specific recommendation on
whether Vermont should grant gay and lesbian couples access to civil marriage.
The Commission believes that making such a recommendation would undercut the
purpose and usefulness of its work and this report. Simply put, we were
asked to listen to the testimony of Vermonters on these issues, to look at the
legal issues, and to report on what we found. It is the role of Vermont's
policy-makers and elected officials to read and reflect on this report and in
their best judgment determine what steps to take in their role as public
servants of the people of Vermont. Accordingly, the Commission does not
reach that recommendation.
3. The Commission recommends that Vermont take seriously the differences between
civil marriage and civil union in terms of their practical and legal
consequences for Vermont's civil union couples and their families. Their
testimony and the testimony of their friends and supporters was sincere, direct,
impassioned, and compelling. Act 91 represents Vermont's commitment to the
constitutional equality and fairness for these citizens, and Vermont should
preserve and protect that commitment.
(End page 29)
|
