Civil Unions News – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net

Civil Unions News

This page is an archive of articles presented on the Current News page of the USConstitution.net site
concerning Vermont’s Civil Union Law.

03/06/02 Massachusetts court to take up gay marriage

The top court in Massachusetts is taking up the issue of gay marriage in a case
brought by seven gay and lesbian couples. The suit asks the courts to redefine
what marriage means, hoping the court will do for them what the legislature has
not done. One of the couples, Ed Balmelli and Mike Horgan, have gotten a civil
union in Vermont, but are concerned about their lack of rights, even in a
hospital setting, in their home state.

07/27/02 NC paper announces civil union

In a first for the Fayetteville Observer, a local gay couple who traveled to
Vermont for civil union had their union announced in the wedding listings.
Response, says the paper, has been polarized, with most local reaction being
negative and most national reaction being positive. The paper said that it
would run more in the future, assuming the union is recognized by a government
and at least one of the party is a local resident.

07/24/02 Connecticut court won’t dissolve civil union

A Connecticut judge ruled that he does not have the power to dissolve the civil
union of a Connecticut couple, because the state does not recognize civil
unions. Vermont will not dissolve the union of Glen Rosengarten and Peter
Downes either, because the couple does not live in Vermont. The two were
joined in 2000. After the couple split, Rosengarten applied in a Connecticut
court for dissolution. The dissolution was sought to ensure inheritance rights
for Rosengarten’s adult children. Rosengarten’s attorney has advised his
client to appeal the decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

01/23/02 Ruling Georgia case rejects civil unions

The case of Susan Freer, who asked that a Georgia court find her civil union to
be a marriage under the terms of a custody arrangement, has been turned down by
a Georgia appeals court. The court ruled today that for the purposes of the
custody agreement (which requires that Freer be married to any live-in partner
in order to continue visitation), Freer’s civil union is not a marriage.

01/03/02 Challenges to Civil Unions law rejected

The Vermont Supreme Court announced today that on 12/26/01, it rejected a
challenge to the Vermont Civil Union law brought by taxpayers, town clerks, and
lawmakers. The suit asserted that the law was invalid because several
lawmakers entered into a betting pool over the outcome of a preliminary vote in
the Vermont House. It also asserted that town clerks with religious objections
to civil union were discriminated against by the law. The first assertion was
denied because the discipline of House members is left to the House itself
according to Chapter 2, Section 14 of the
Vermont Constitution. The justices did not rule directly on the second
assertion, but did note that it found it questionable whether a public official
could remain in office while refusing to perform any duty on religious grounds.
The Court also pointed out that the law allowed town clerks to appoint an
assistant to issue civil union licenses.

10/11/01 Georgia couple sues for married status

A lesbian couple joined in civil union in Vermont is arguing in front of a
Georgia appeals court that their union should be recognized by Georgia. One
half of the couple, Susan Freer, has children from a prior marriage. A state
court has barred her from seeing her children while she lives with someone out
of wedlock. Freer and her companion Debra Freer (Susan took Debra’s name) were
joined in Vermont after civil unions were approved, and her children were
barred from seeing her ever since. As of September, 2001, almost 2500 civil
union licenses have been issued, with only 20% of those going to Vermont

07/01/00 First-ever civil union licenses issued

With several town clerks opening for unusual Saturday office hours, or opening
at the stroke of midnight, Vermont’s civil union law took effect, allowing same-
sex couples to ability to join in legally recognized unions. Like marriage in
many ways, but not in name, civil unions allow gay couples to enjoy all of the
Vermont-sanctioned benefits of marriage as ordered by Vermont’s Supreme Court.
Non-resident couples may also join in a civil union, though the union will not
be recognized in their home state. Though official statistics won’t be
available for some time, at least a dozen licenses were issued Saturday, about
half to out-of-state couples. Lois Farnham and Holly Peterbaugh, whose denial
of a marriage license in 1997 led to the law suit that prompted the civil
unions law, united in civil union on Saturday, lending legal recogniztion to
their 28-year partnership.

04/27/00 Civil Unions now the law in Vermont

With the sweep of his pen, Vermont Governor Howard Dean signed the landmark
civil unions bill into law today. The law, which allows gay couples to join
in a civil union, granting all of the rights and privileges of marriage, will
go into effect on July 1, 2000, with some portions of the bill set to take
effect over the next year.

04/25/00 Vermont civil unions bill heads to Governor for

The Vermont House today accepted the changes made to its bill by the Senate,
negating the need for a potentially problematic conference committee. The
bill, which passed by a vote of 79 to 68, has been sent to Governor Howard
Dean, who is expected to sign the bill into law on Thursday. The bill is
scheduled to start taking effect in July, 2000.

04/18/00 Vermont Senate gives preliminary approval to civil unions

In a 19-11 vote, the Vermont Senate approved a slightly modified version of the
civil unions bill sent to it by the Vermont House. Final approval is expected
tomorrow, at which time the bill will be sent back to the House, where the
Senate’s changes will either be accepted, or the bill will go to a conference
committee. Two attempts to introduce constitutional amendments failed.

04/04/00 GOP candidate Keyes to speak in Vermont about civil

The Vermont Senate’s Republican Leader John Bloomer (R-Rutland) said that he
had been contacted by the campaign of GOP dark horse candidate Alan Keyes –
Keyes wished to address the Senate Judiciary Committee about the proposed civil
unions bill. Committee Chair Richard Sears (D-Bennington) did not allow Keyes
to testify in front of the committee, since he is not a Vermonter. Sears said
that if a out-of-stater with an opposite view point from Keyes wished to
address the committee, then the balanced testimony might be allowed. Keyes
opposes civil unions as proposed in Vermont. Instead, Keyes will address
interested senators and others in the statehouse on April 6, 2000.

03/17/00 Vermont House passes civil unions bill

In a 76-69 vote today, the Vermont House passed H.847, a bill that creates a
legal coupling for gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally marry. The bill
defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and provides for “civil
unions” for same-sex couples. The bill also provides for a “reciprocal
benefits” feature, for use by, for example, elderly sisters. Reciprocal
benefits affect mostly medical decisions. The bill now proceeds to the Vermont
Senate, where passage is expected. The Governor has vowed to sign the

03/06/00 Vermont partnership bill clears another hurdle

The Vermont House’s Ways and Means Committee approved the Civil Union bill by a
narrow 6-5 margin. The Committee needed to approve the bill because it will
affect Vermont tax provisions. Several members of the committee tried to move
the bill to the House floor without a vote, but the full committee felt a vote
was important, including Chair Oreste Valsangiacomo, who opposes the bill. The
vote was not split on party lines, illustrating both the bipartisan support,
and the bipartisan opposition, that the bill faces in the full House.

03/01/00 Vermont legislature moves closer to same-sex

The House Judiciary Committee approved a plan that adds “civil union” to the
Vermont statutes. Civil unions provide same-sex couples with most of the
benefits of marriage; in the legislation, marriage is declared to be
exclusively a man/woman union. Civil unions would be performed by justices or
by clergy, though no clergy member would be forced to perform a civil union
ceremony. Dissolution of a civil union would be handled in family court, as are
divorces. Another provision provides for a “reciprocal benefits” agreement,
allowing pairs of people, such as elderly sisters, to enjoy a small subset of
marital and civil union rights, such as the ability to make medical decisions.
The bill must now be approved by the full House and sent to the Senate for
action. Opponents vow to use the civil union vote against candidates in the
next general election, and to continue efforts to pass a constitutional

02/10/00 Vermont legislative committee rejects same-sex

The Vermont Legislature’s Judiciary Committee voted on the three available
options in the on-going same-sex marriage saga. The committee voted 8-3 to
recommend that the full legislature pass a domestic partner bill. The third
option, to do nothing and defy the Vermont Supreme Court, received no support.
The supporters of same-sex marriage included two Democrats and a Progressive,
with the supporters of domestic partnership included all Republican members and
the remaining Democrats. The Governor announced his strong support for the
committee’s decision. Meanwhile, a group of legislators are proposing the
impeachment of the entire membership of the Supreme Court.

01/28/00 Vermont legislator proposes amendment to Vermont
Constitution to define marriage

Vermont State Senator Julius Canns (R-Caledonia) is introducing a bill in the
Vermont Senate which would propose an amendment to the state constitution,
putting the kibosh on the State Supreme Court’s ruling about gay marriage
rights. The amendment, which would read simply “Marriage is a special label
for a partnership between a man and a woman,” would be designed to have the
same effect as a similar amendment had in Hawaii in 1999. It is unclear,
however, if such an amendment would overrule the court ruling, since the ruling
is not about who can marry, but who can obtain the privileges of marriage.

12/20/99 Vermont Supreme Court rules in gay marriage

In a long-anticipated decision, the Vermont Supreme Court today decided in
favor of several gay Vermont couples who sued for the right to marry in the
state. The Court ruled that gay couples must have an institution that bestows
upon them the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples. The
Court said that it was up to the legislature to decide if that instituion will
be marriage or some other formal, state-recognized partnership. The decision
stemmed from the requirement in the Vermont Constitution’s Article 7, which states that the “government
is… instituted for the common benefit… of the people.” Because the decision
is based on rights held in the Vermont Constitution, it cannot be appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court.

12/10/99 Hawaii Supreme Court rules that gay marriage suit is

The Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that an effort to legalize gay marriage in
Hawaii is moot, because the voters of that state approved a constitutional
amendment that specifically allowed legislators to decide if gay marriage
should be allowed or not. The case centered around a 1994 law banning gay
marriage. The amendment, approved in 1998 by the voters, ensured that the 1994
law would be upheld. The ruling leaves a similar suit in Vermont the only
remaining gay marriage case in front of a state supreme court.

8/2/99 Out-of-state group comes to Vermont to protest Supreme

With the Vermont Supreme Court as yet silent on its so-called “Gay Marriage”
case, Vermont braced for the arrival of a group of protesters from the Topeka,
KS, Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). The WBC, which calls Vermont “fag-filled,”
will picket the statehouse to protest the case. Vermont groups, even those
opposed to the gay marriage case, have vowed to stay away from the protest, wary
of the WBC’s tactics.

Last Modified: 24 Jan 2010

Valid HTML 4.0