Senate Approves Civil Union Legislation Handily

by Barbara Dozetos

Beth Robinson, lawyer for the plantiffs, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. photo: Barbara Dozetos

MONTPELIER – A bill almost identical to the civil union bill passed in March by Vermont’s House of Representatives won preliminary approval from the Senate on April 19 before a crowd of spectators that overflowed the chamber’s small gallery and filled the lobby. Senators also resoundingly defeated two proposed constitutiona amendments.

Opponents of the bill, wearing white ribbons, and supporters with their bright pink stickers stood shoulder to shoulder in the chamber. Others waited in the hallway for hours hoping to get a seat inside when someone left.

In contrast to the highly emotional, two-day-long debate in the House, the Senate’s debate lasted only a few hours and was subdued.

“I wasn’t around to vote for women’s right to vote or for the civil rights laws in the 1960s,” said Sen. Jean Ankeney, D-St. George, “But I feel lucky and honored to be here now to vote for this.”

“H.847 is just and overdue,” said Sen. James Leddy, D-South Burlington. “There is nothing in the [Baker] decision, this bill, or the relationship between two same sex people that is a threat to my marriage.”

“We can do something very, very important here,’’ said Sen. Richard McCormack, D-Bethel. “We can make life a little less hard for gay and lesbian people.”

Sen. Ben-Zion Ptashnik, D-Norwich, said he was worried about the messages being conveyed by some of the religious leaders. “When there is vilification of people from the pulpit,”” he said, it leads to fear, hatred, and the Holocaust.”

Ptashnik said he believed that no one can speak for God. “To those who believe their religious views are paramount, I would say that no one has a lock on morality.”

Senator Mark MacDonald, D-Williamstown, an eighth grade social studies teacher, said he had decided to vote against the measure, but changed his mind when one of his constituents asked him how he would explain his vote to his students when he returned to school.

“Politicians can fool themselves and they can choose to fool their constituents, but how do you tell a kid you voted against a bill for the sole purpose of being re-elected?” he asked.

He exhorted fellow lawmakers to help heal the divide in the state. “Go out and help them get beyond the easy answers. Make them think about it.”

Several senators who voted against the bill said they were doing so because their constituents opposed it. Others said they feared the national and international reaction.

“All of the United States and the world will judge our decision today,” warned Republican Senator Julius Canns of St. Johnsbury. He asked supporters of the bill to stop “playing the race card.” He said he was of three races – black, Indian, and white – and was offended by comparisons to the struggle for racial equality. Canns said, “There is no civil rights problem here, only a sex problem.”

“We are talking about suffering and pain in the lives of people who are discriminated against,” Senator Elizabeth Ready, D-Lincoln, responded to Canns. “These people have fought battles we don’t know about.”

A 19-11 vote moved the 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 definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The second would have overturned the Supreme Court ruling in the Baker case. Neither amendment won a simple majority, let alone the two-thirds required for constitutional amendments.

“I believe their sexual orientation runs counter to natural 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 homosexuality was not a choice, he would support legislation protecting 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.”