Page 3A

Civil unions blur at Vt.'s state line

By Fred Bayles
USA TODAY

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- In 1997, Robert DeBenedictis and Don Picard invited 200 guests to a Massachusetts beach to celebrate their union.

''It was a wedding to our mothers, but not a marriage if you ask the state,'' says DeBenedictis, an engineer in Cambridge, Mass.

Last July, the pair stood before a justice of the peace in Brattleboro, Vt., and repeated their vows. This time the ceremony had the authority of Vermont's civil union law, which gives legal status to gay and lesbian couples.

''We did it for the magic words: 'By the power vested in me by the state of Vermont,' '' DeBenedictis says.

But one year after Vermont became the only state to offer legal status to same-sex couples, the question remains: What power does the civil union law carry outside the state?

Legally, Vermont civil unions aren't recognized elsewhere. But they are gaining some acceptance outside the courts and legislatures. Some couples who travel to Vermont for a civil union certificate find it helps in gaining insurance coverage or hospital visitation privileges.

''There are signs of societal acceptance of civil unions, but it will be a very slow process,'' says Martha Field, a family law expert at Harvard Law School.

Legislation proposing same-sex marriages or civil unions has been introduced in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, California and Washington but is given little chance of passage.

In April, a lesbian couple filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts and used the same arguments presented in the original Vermont case. They claim same-sex couples are being denied equal legal protection that heterosexual couples receive.

Thirty-four states have passed forms of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the exclusive union of a man and a woman. About two-thirds of those laws were passed before Vermont's civil unions law.

On Thursday, a coalition called the Alliance for Marriage will announce a campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to say marriage can exist only between a man and a woman. Both houses of Congress and 38 states would have to ratify the amendment for it to become law.

As debate over the Vermont law continues, advocates for same-sex marriage point to DeBenedictis' use of his civil union certificate to expedite health coverage under his partner's plan. Many corporations and government agencies around the nation offer health coverage for domestic partners, but the companies require extensive proof of the relationship. Now they accept a civil union certificate.

One Maine woman, who asked not to be identified, says she was able to stay with her partner and consult with the partner's doctors in a hospital emergency room after showing their civil union certificate.

And in Georgia, a lesbian couple involved in a child-custody case claim their Vermont civil union is proof of a solid relationship.

''Civil unions are making a real-life difference for real-life families,'' says Evan Wolfson, a lawyer formerly with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights legal group in New York. ''It is moving forward slowly, but that's how every civil rights movement in America has proceeded.''

There were 2,258 civil unions conducted by the end of June, Vermont's vital records department says. Only 463 involved Vermont couples. None of the 1,795 out-of-state couples stayed in Vermont, as opponents had predicted. The state averages about 6,000 marriage licenses a year.

Vermont became the flash point for the issue of same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same benefits, protections and responsibilities given to heterosexual married couples.

The court ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution, which could be something short of marriage. After intense debate, the Legislature created civil unions.

Couples joined under the law receive the same rights and responsibilities that marriage gives heterosexual couples in such matters as insurance, inheritance, child custody and taxes. Those rights are limited to Vermont residents.

The law had more political backlash than social impact in Vermont. Conservatives, already frustrated by what they viewed as liberal laws on the environment and school funding, initiated a campaign to ''Take Back Vermont'' that helped Republicans take control of the Vermont House last November and purge moderates who voted for the civil union bill.

In the legislative session that ended in June, conservative lawmakers tried to dilute the civil union law by proposing to rename it ''reciprocal partnerships'' and extending some rights, such as health care coverage, to blood relatives.

The bill passed by a single vote in the House, but the Democratic-controlled Senate refused to consider the measure. Recent polls show that while voters remain divided on civil unions, two-thirds want to move on from the controversy.

''The sky didn't fall like critics said it would,'' says Beth Robinson, a lawyer who argued for gay marriages in the state Supreme Court. ''People see that extending equal rights to same-sex couples doesn't weaken traditional families.''

Mary Bonauto, whose Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders took part in the original Vermont lawsuit, says civil unions will continue to be tested. ''These issues are being handled on a case-by-case basis,'' she says. ''Banks being asked to make joint loans to civil union couples are determining what their policy should be. Courts will do the same thing.''

The Georgia case could bring the same-sex marriage issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. Susan Freer is challenging a consent decree with her ex-husband that only a spouse could stay overnight in their homes when their three children were present. Freer subsequently had a Vermont civil union ceremony with her lesbian lover and claims it gives them a married status.

''It boils down to the basic question of whether their Vermont civil union is a legal marriage in Georgia,'' says Erik Stanley, the lawyer representing Freer's ex-husband. ''We're saying you can't evoke a law from one state to make a new law in another state.''