House committee approves gay marriage bill
12:10 p.m.
Toolbox
By DANIEL BARLOW
Vermont Press Bureau - Published: March 31, 2009
MONTPELIER – The House Judiciary Committee voted 8-2 Tuesday morning to approve a same-sex marriage bill.
Seven Democrats on the committee were joined by a single Republican in approving the bill, which comes after more than a week of testimony. The bill is expected to be debated on the floor of the Vermont House Thursday and Friday.
“It’s no secret where I stand on this issue,” said Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, shortly before he voted yes. “I believe this is the right thing to do. I believe this is the right time to do it.”
Tuesday’s vote brings Vermont one step closer to becoming the third state allowing same-sex couples to marry, although the bill faces a veto from Republican Gov. James Douglas if it passes the House.
The Judiciary Committee unanimously approved three amendments to the bill Tuesday morning, including boosting provisions that protect religious institutions from performing marriage ceremonies they don’t agree with.
Other amendments that were easily approved include one that reaffirms the rights of organizations such as the Knights of Columbus to determine its own membership and one that retains the use of terms such as husband and wife in state law and documents – but makes it clear that the terms also include same-sex couples.
Lippert, who offered the final amendment, said he wanted to include that language to make it clear that lawmakers have no authority over religious marriages – that’s protected by the U.S. Constitution – and that this bill only changes civil marriages in the eyes of the state.
Tuesday’s vote was tough for some members. Rep. Margaret Flory, R-Pittsford, a veteran of the civil union debate of 2000, said she was verbally and physically accosted by a same-sex marriage supporter over the weekend, adding that she is “ashamed of Vermont for the way people, on both sides, reacted to this.”
Flory voted no.
“I would be happier with the state getting out of the marriage business all together,” she said. “We could grant any two people who want to be financially responsible for each other all the legal benefits and obligations.”
Contact Daniel Barlow at Daniel.Barlow@timesargus.com.