[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by atypicalLIer

Thank you for taking the time to explain the issues. My only problem, which is really a matter of semantics, is using the word marriage. I would have no issue with revamping and strengthening the civil union so that the benefits mentioned above would be equal to those of people in heterosexual marriages.

My parents were very conservative, but I embraced the rights of my homosexual friends from a young age. I'm a little old school about the use of the word marriage. I know, it is silly, but at least I'm honest

Thanks for sharing that! I think our traditions and values are important. I think we all deserve full access to our traditions and values as long as they do not interfere with another's freedom and right to equal regard under our civil laws.

There is no legal way to make civil unions (or domestic partnerships or any alternative structure) equal to marriage in rights, privileges, and obligations.

It's the notion of equal protection under the law written into our state and federal Constitutions. Civil union (or domestic partnership) has no recognized analogue status for which equality can be demanded. Only marriage carries that full legal weight.

On a very mundane level, employers are protected under a federal law known as ERISA, so they can insure (or not insure) whomever they wish. The many out-of-state employers with Vermont employees can never be legally compelled to rewrite their insurance polices to include "civil union partner" along with spouse.

The state of New York cannot be compelled to recognize civil union partners as fully as married spouses, because that is not found in the state constitution. Only married couples, opposite-sex or same-sex, will be recognized as fully linked under New York State law -- equal protection again.

When the current challenge to the "Defense of Marriage Act Succeeds," only married same-sex couples will be eligible for Social Security survivor benefits. There is no equal protection guarantee for civil union partners and those folks will be out in the cold with their grief and no financial assistance when their beloveds pass away.

My husband and I understand that some don't want to "share" the word marriage with others. We don't understand why (though we are listening to all opponents say) because nothing can affect our marriage except us. For our friends and fellow community members to be able to marry seems better to me.

On the other hand, we must "share" the word marriage with countless heterosexual couples who make a mockery of it, sometimes repeatedly.

[atypicalLIer]

On the other hand, we must "share" the word marriage with countless heterosexual couples who make a mockery of it, sometimes repeatedly.

Excellent point!

[flu189]

If in fact Governor Douglas does veto this it will represent only a minor speed bump. The legislature has the means and tools to over ride and of course the state supreme court, as in the past, can enter the fray and circumvent the democratic process by installing law and policy regardless of public will. Douglas does indeed have much more important issues to deal with, specifically the economic train wreck this state is destined for. However, it is pretty obvious on how ineffective his successive terms have been. He will bring up valid points on many issues, but by being in the gross minority he wields actually very little executive authority. Each and everyday more grim statistics on our fiscal liabilities versus income surface, yet true to form as in sessions past, the legislature finds other causes to champion and expend it's efforts on while glad handing each other in the home stretch to the end of the annual session. Vermont is loaded with 800 pound gorillas in the room. Today I read, though I already knew some of the figures and implications, of the unfunded state pension liability which now sits at $1.6 billion dollars and grows daily. There has been so much on the news concerning expelling 600+ state employees to save $17 million. The current and future pension bomb dwarfs this amount like the Empire State Building does a beach bungalow. Vermonters and outsiders alike should understand that we have 8,442 state workers and 10,685 teachers, hence, that means that one out of every 33.4 adult and child in our populations falls into that category. State workers pay in 5.1% of their wage versus teachers who pay 3.5%. The state is required to, but has not paid it's proportionate share into the teachers plans and thus that is where the looming liability is. We probably would have been better off if the federal stimulus money just went to fund this, as bad as it would seem, because these contractual obligations will sink us in the end for sure. As for gay marriage, personally I could not care less. I am glad that those affected will perhaps see some tangible benefit to their lives, but action on this matter has come at a great expense by delaying action on other urgent issues affecting the entire population.

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by flu189

As for gay marriage, personally I could not care less. I am glad that those affected will perhaps see some tangible benefit to their lives, but action on this matter has come at a great expense by delaying action on other urgent issues affecting the entire population.

Marriage Equality will provide tangible benefits to some Vermont families immediately. Here's just one way: All Vermont same-sex couples who get married will instantly be eligible for spousal health insurance and other employer-provided spousal benefits. I know three families right off the top of my head who pay over $500 per month additional for health insurance because their out-of-state employers' insurance policies do not even mention civil union partners. However, those same employers cover the spouses of married same-sex couples in Massachusetts & Connecticut, because they have the status of married spouse.

Marriage Equality delayed nothing. It was in the pipeline and ready to be acted on because the hard work was being done over the past two years before the economy collapsed. This bill cost Vermont nothing other than part of two weeks of legislature time, as all the hearings, study, and process were performed by folks who volunteered their time to do so and claimed no expense reimbursement. Note that even when the Senate voted on it yesterday they also worked on and voted on several other measures.

[Teotwawki]

This bill passed with a veto-proof majority in the Senate, 26-4, actually by 88% margin. 88%! And almost half the Republicans voted for it. While I doubt the House will pass it with the same overwhelming majority, I do think another veto-proof majority (100 votes) is definitely possible.

I think the Gov is actually hoping this passes with a veto-proof majority; that way he can continue to state his opposition while bowing to the "will of the people". If it just passes in the House with a less than 2/3rd majority, then look for a deal to be made with the Dem majority leaders.

[mustmove]

The health insurance bit is funny. Before we got married I was living with my girlfriend(in MA pre-gay marriage) and my girlfriend's employer covered same sex couples that were living together, but not heterosexual couples unless they were married. Anyway we set our marriage date before my insurance bill was due to save money(insurance was required by law for college students). In that circumstance gay couples had more benefits than straight couples. After gay marriage passed most employers that covered unmarried gay couples switched to only covering married couples. Fair enough but it was a loss of benefits to some. Good old unintended consequences.

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by mustmove

Fair enough but it was a loss of benefits to some. Good old unintended consequences.

No kidding! That's one I hadn't thought of.

[flu189]

Well. it's good to hear that somebody is getting a benefit on health insurance. I know that my wife and I are virtually to the point where we can barely even afford our employer coverage itself not to mention all the exclusions and fine print on what it will cover and not cover and we are talking a plan which combined costs $18k a year between myself and employer. Anyway, this issue has two distinct sides and there is no point to banter about it. The fact is that Vermont has it's agenda and by virtue of it's agenda it will attract a segment of the population which is good. I just hope that they come with assets enough to eventually buy my home and then live happily ever after. Regarding the legislature and their activities, yes they do address numerous other issues which I follow each and every week, unfortunately they are of limited meaningful consequence. Again, I have no personal issue with gay marriage and I think it's totally fine that we have reached the point we are at. Maybe now that this and the trans gender stuff has been dealt with we can get to work on the other issues which are of absolute critical importance to the welfare of Vermont's citizens as a whole.

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by flu189

I know that my wife and I are virtually to the point where we can barely even afford our employer coverage itself not to mention all the exclusions and fine print on what it will cover and not cover and we are talking a plan which combined costs $18k a year between myself and employer.

OMG!!!!

Originally Posted by flu189

Maybe now that this and the trans gender stuff has been dealt with we can get to work on the other issues which are of absolute critical importance to the welfare of Vermont's citizens as a whole.

Agreed! Time to get it done and move on!

[sugarmaple]

Equal protection under the law should be a no-brainer ; it is a constitutional right and yet it certainly seems to be twisted and stretched to accommodate some, and not others. I appreciate that comment being posted because brilliantly ): I had not really thought of viewing it that way...thanks! Equal protection under the law does not get applied in many many situations, and not meaning to go off into a totally different tangent but rather as an example...as a v/s of DV/SA I was not at all presented with equal protection under the law because it was my former spouse; had it been a stranger, probably so. So, of course I especially understand and agree with the noted difference between union and marriage, quite simply equal protection. Hmmm, wonder if the legislators are grasping that as well?

For VT, I agree, I think if the majority at the Capitol pass it, the Governor will let it go by and move to other issues.

And, as far as insurance is concerned and helping defray some of the costs (18K is outrageous)...why can't there simply be a consistent agreement among insurance carriers, that being, insurance policies suited for the individual. It appears to me that most health insurance covers everything and some of those things are not necessary for some people, thus, it could defray some of the costs for the insurance premiums. If everyone read their policies, especially employee insurance policies, they would recognize some procedures that they are covered for that they will never need. Perhaps it will take a bit longer for an insurance company to delineate each employee and their needs, but if it helps lower costs, why not. For example, as a woman, why should my insurance policy cover any testicular procedures, such as why should a male's coverage include potential hysterectomies. I trust that will never be a necessary procedure for them. And, the likelihood for a woman over the age of 60 to be concerned about OB visits and delivery and perhaps that can be removed from that person's insurance.

I think it should be like the midnight buffet on the Queen Elizabeth II, you look at the huge buffet and say, yup, I need and want that, nope, I don't need or want that. Bet that would lower coverage markedly.