Journal of the House s9

Journal of the House ______WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 At nine o'clock in the forenoon the Speaker called the House to order. Devotional Exercises Devotional exercises were conducted by Reverend Steven Doe of the Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Barre. House Resolution Referred to Committee H.R. 37 Rep. Robb of Swanton offered a joint resolution, entitled House resolution requesting the Senate to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman Whereas, the Vermont Supreme Court, in the recent decision Baker v State, has declared that a marriage under Vermont law is a union between a man and a woman, and Whereas, despite this declaration, the Vermont Supreme Court, in holding that couples of the same sex were entitled to the same legal rights and privileges as married couples, placed in doubt the future of marriage as exclusively a union between a man and a woman, and Whereas, Vermonters have strongly expressed their opinions on this issue, and they overwhelmingly oppose defining marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman, and Whereas, the only legislative recourse to guarantee that marriage continues to be defined exclusively as a union between a man and a woman is to amend the Vermont Constitution to include this very fundamental principle, and Whereas, in order to afford the Vermont electorate the earliest possible opportunity, at the November 2002 general elections, to vote whether to amend the Vermont Constitution to define marriage as exclusively a legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman, the General Assembly must complete the initial amendment approval process prior to the final adjournment in 2000, now therefore be it

246 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 247 Resolved by the House of Representatives: That the House of Representatives requests the Senate to promptly adopt, and forward to the House for action, a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and be it further Resolved: That the Clerk of the House be directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Chair of the Senate Committee on Government Operations. Which was read and referred to the committee on Judiciary. Joint Resolutions Placed on Calendar The Speaker placed before the House the following resolutions which were read and in the Speaker’s discretion, placed on the Calendar for action tomorrow under Rule 52. J.R.H. 205 Joint resolution urging Congress to fully subsidize all absentee ballot postal costs Offered by: Representatives Mazur of South Burlington and Barbieri of Wallingford Whereas, voting is one of the most cherished rights of citizenship that the citizens of Vermont freely and enthusiastically exercise on town meeting day, and at primary and general elections, and Whereas, Vermonters have long recognized the act of marking their Australian Ballots is a critical prerequisite to perpetually rotate the wheels of democracy, and Whereas, while the citizens of Vermont have historically voted in higher percentages than their counterparts in most other states, many persons, due to illness, and important family, academic or business commitments, are unable to personally cast their ballots on election day, and Whereas, recognizing that expanding the pool of potential absentee voters would encourage more individuals to vote, the General Assembly has lifted many of the restrictions that were once placed on exercising the vote through the absentee process, and Whereas, while broadening access to the ballot box has served as a positive stimulus for the electoral process, it has burdened municipalities with increased postal expenses related to the mailing of absentee voting materials, and is an unfunded state mandate, and 248 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 Whereas, Vermont’s decision to expand the availability of absentee ballots is hardly unique among the states, and Whereas, the ability for voters to return an absentee ballot, postage free, would be a wise public investment in strengthening the vitality of the electoral system, both here in Vermont and nationwide, now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That the General Assembly urges the United States Congress to enact legislation directing the United States Postal Service to adopt regulations providing for the postage free mailing, by municipalities, of absentee voting-related materials to voters, and for citizens remitting their marked ballots, and be it further Resolved: That the Secretary of State be directed to send a copy of this resolution to U.S. Senators George Voinovich of Ohio and Richard Durbin of Illinois, the chair and ranking minority member of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia; U.S. Representatives John M. McHugh of New York and Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, the chair and ranking minority member of the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Postal Service; the Vermont Congressional Delegation and U.S. Postmaster William J. Henderson. J.R.H. 206 Joint Resolution relating to the Plymouth cheese factory Offered by: Representative Wood of Brandon Whereas, Sec. 5(a)(2) of Act No. 148 of the Acts of 1997 (Adjourned Session), concerning state acquisition of the Plymouth Notch Cheese Factory at the Plymouth Notch Historic District, requires legislative approval of a marketing plan and operating agreement with a third party for operation or sale of the factory prepared by the department of housing and community affairs, and Whereas, the required plan and operating agreement have been prepared, now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That the general assembly hereby approves of the required marketing plan and operating agreement, and be it further Resolved: That the secretary of state is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the commissioner of housing and community affairs.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 249 Committee Bill Introduced H. 852 Rep. Little of Shelburne, for the committee on Judiciary, introduced a bill, entitled An act relating to patients’ access to their medical records; Which was read the first time and, under the rule, placed on the Calendar for notice tomorrow. Senate Bills Referred Senate bills of the following titles were severally taken up, read the first time and referred as follows: S. 240 Senate bill, entitled An act relating to the management of stormwater runoff; To the committee on Natural Resources and Energy. S. 296 Senate bill, entitled An act relating to explosives and fireworks; To the committee on Judiciary. Bill Referred to Committee on Appropriations H. 843 House bill, entitled An act relating to assisting families to attain self-sufficiency; Appearing on the Calendar, carrying an appropriation, under rule 35a, was referred to the committee on Appropriations. Joint Resolution Adopted J.R.H. 204 Joint resolution in memory of former Representative, Senator and Commissioner of Social Welfare, John J. Wackerman; Was taken up and adopted on the part of the House. 250 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000

Third Reading; Bills Passed House bills of the following titles were severally taken up, read the third time and passed: H. 632 House bill, entitled An act relating to work zone speed violations. H. 705 House bill, entitled An act relating to particular proceedings of the public service board. Bill Read the Second Time; Amended; Consideration Interrupted by Recess H. 847 Rep. Deen of Westminster, for the committee on Ways and Means, to which had been referred House bill, entitled An act relating to civil unions; Reported in favor of its passage when amended as follows: First: In Sec. 3, in section 1204(e)(14), after the word “municipality”, by adding “other than estate taxes” Second: By striking Secs. 20 through 23, and inserting new Secs. 20 through 23 to read: Sec. 20. 32 V.S.A. § 3001 is amended to read: § 3001. PERSON CONSTRUED DEFINITIONS (a) The word "person" “Person” as used in Parts 2, 4 and 5 of this subtitle shall include a partnership, association, corporation or limited liability company. (b) “Party to a civil union” is defined for purposes of Title 32 as under subdivision 1201(4) of Title 15. (c) “Laws of the United States”, “federal tax laws” and other references to United States tax law (other than federal estate and gift tax law) shall mean United States tax law applied as if federal law recognized a civil union in the same manner as Vermont law.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 251 Sec. 21. 32 V.S.A. § 5812 is added to read: § 5812. INCOME TAXATION OF PARTIES TO A CIVIL UNION This chapter shall apply to parties to a civil union and surviving parties to a civil union as if federal income tax law recognized a civil union in the same manner as Vermont law. Sec. 22. 32 V.S.A. § 7401(a) is amended to read: (a) This chapter is intended to conform the Vermont inheritance estate tax laws with the estate and gift tax provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code, except as otherwise expressly provided, in order to simplify the taxpayer's filing of returns, reduce the taxpayer's accounting burdens, and facilitate the collection and administration of these taxes. Because federal estate and gift tax law does not recognize a civil union in the same manner as Vermont law, and because a reduction in the Vermont estate tax liability for parties to a civil union based upon the federal marital deduction would not reduce the total estate tax liability, estates of parties to a civil union shall be subject to tax based on their actual federal estate tax liability and the federal credit for state death taxes, as provided under this chapter. Sec. 23. 32 V.S.A. § 3802(11) is amended to read: (11)(A) Real and personal property to the extent of $10,000.00 of appraisal value, except any part used for business or rental, occupied as the established residence of and owned in fee simple by a veteran of any war or a veteran who has received an American Expeditionary Medal, his or her spouse, widow, widower or child, or jointly by any combination of them, if one or more of them are receiving disability compensation for at least fifty percent disability, death compensation, dependence and indemnity compensation, or pension for disability paid through any military department or the veterans administration if, before May 1 of each year, there is filed with the listers: (A)(i) a written application therefor; and (B)(ii) a written statement from the military department or the veterans administration showing that the compensation or pension is being paid. Only one exemption may be allowed on a property. (B) The terms used in this subdivision subsection shall have the same definitions as in Title 38, U.S. Code § 101, except that: (i) the definitions shall apply as if federal law recognized a civil union in the same manner as Vermont law; (ii) such definitions shall not be construed to deny eligibility for exemption in the case where such exemption is based on retirement for 252 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 disability and retirement pay is received from a federal agency other than the veterans administration, ; and (iii) the age and marital status limits in section 101(4)(A) shall not apply. An unremarried widow or widower of a previously qualified veteran shall be entitled to the exemption provided in this subdivision subsection whether or not he or she is receiving government compensation or pension. By majority vote of those present and voting at an annual or special meeting warned for the purpose, a town may increase the veterans' exemption under this subsection to up to $20,000.00 of appraisal value. Any increase in exemption shall take effect for the taxable year in which it was voted, and shall remain in effect for future taxable years until amended or repealed by a similar vote. Third: In Sec. 26, on page 34, line 1, after the word “fee”, by inserting “of $10.00” ; and on page 34, line 8, by striking “the fee” and inserting in lieu thereof “a filing fee of $10.00”; and on page 35, by striking lines 4 through 6; and on page 35, line 7, by striking “(d)” and inserting in lieu thereof “(c)”. Fourth: In Sec. 39, by striking subsections (b), (c) and (d) and adding new subsections (b) and (c) to read: (b) Sec. 20 (tax definitions) and Sec. 21 (income taxation of parties to a civil union) of this act shall apply to taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2001. (c) Sec. 23 of this act (veterans’ property tax exemption) shall apply to grand lists for 2001 and after. And by relettering subsection (e) as subsection (d) The bill, having appeared on the Calendar one day for notice, was taken up and read the second time and the report of the committee on Ways and Means agreed to. Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Recess At ten o’clock and forty-five minutes in the forenoon, the Speaker declared a recess until one o’clock in the afternoon. Afternoon At one o’clock and ten minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 253 Consideration Resumed; Consideration Interrupted by Recess; Consideration Resumed and Third Reading Ordered H. 847 Consideration resumed on House bill, entitled An act relating to civil unions. Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Koch of Barre Town moved to amend the bill as follows: By striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Sec. 1. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (a) The following question shall be submitted to the voters of the state of Vermont on November 7, 2000: Shall a constitutional convention be convened for the sole and limited purpose of responding to the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. State of Vermont? (b) If a majority of the votes cast on the foregoing question are in the affirmative, the voters shall elect the delegates to the convention on March 6, 2001. There shall be 300 delegates, two from each single member representative district, and four from each two member representative district. A petition to place the name of a candidate for delegate on the ballot shall bear the signatures of 50 voters in the district and shall be filed with the representative district clerk on or before January 15, 2001. Elections for delegates shall be non-partisan, and there shall be no primaries; in all other respects, elections shall be conducted as nearly as may be in the same manner as elections for state representative. (c) The delegates shall meet in Montpelier on July 10, 2001 at a place designated by the secretary of state. The delegates shall select a chair and secretary, adopt their own rules of procedure, and proceed to consideration of the matter for which the convention was organized. In the conduct of their business, the delegates shall have the assistance of the legislative council. Upon completion of the business of the convention, the chair and secretary shall certify to the secretary of state any amendments which the convention shall propose to the people for adoption. (d) Any amendments proposed by the convention shall be submitted to the voters for ratification on November 6, 2001, in accordance with the procedure set forth in chapter 32 of Title 17. A majority of the people voting shall 254 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 constitute ratification. On certification of that majority by the secretary of state within 14 days following ratification, the changes will be incorporated in the constitution and have force and effect as of January 1, 2002. (e) Delegates shall be entitled to reimbursement for expenses as provided for members of the general assembly while the general assembly is in session, pursuant to section 1052 of Title 32. Sec. 2. APPROPRIATION The sum of $150,000.00 is appropriated to the secretary of state in fiscal year 2002 to defray the costs of a constitutional convention, if a convention is approved by the voters; in the event the voters do not approve the calling of a convention, the said sum shall revert to the general fund. Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as recommended by Rep. Koch of Barre Town? Rep. Mullin of Rutland Town demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as amended, as recommended by Rep. Koch of Barre Town? was decided in the negative. Yeas, 45. Nays, 103. Those who voted in the affirmative are: Angell of Randolph Johnson of Canaan Randall of Bradford Baker of West Rutland Koch of Barre Town Richardson of Weathersfield Barney of Highgate Krawczyk of Bennington Robb of Swanton Brown of Walden Larocque of Barnet Rogers of Castleton Clark of St. Johnsbury Larrabee of Danville Schiavone of Shelburne Cleland of Northfield Lehman of Hartford Sherman of St. Johnsbury Crawford of Burke Maslack of Poultney Smith of New Haven DePoy of Rutland Mazur of South Burlington Starr of Troy Flory of Pittsford Metzger of Milton Sweetser of Essex Freed of Dorset Mullin of Rutland Town Valsangiacomo of Barre City Gray of Barre Town O'Donnell of Vernon Waite of Pawlet Helm of Castleton Peaslee of Guildhall Willett of St. Albans City Hoag of Woodford Pembroke of Bennington Winters of Williamstown Houston of Ferrisburgh Pike of Mendon Wood of Brandon Hudson of Lyndon Quaid of Williston Young of Orwell Those who voted in the negative are: Alfano of Calais Bristol of Brattleboro Dakin of Colchester Allard of St. Albans Town Brooks of Montpelier Darrow of Newfane Anderson of Woodstock Buckland of Newport Town Darrow of Dummerston Aswad of Burlington Carmolli of Rutland City Deen of Westminster Atkins of Winooski Colvin of Bennington Deuel of West Rutland Barbieri of Wallingford Corren of Burlington Dominick of Starksboro Blanchard of Essex Costello of Brattleboro Doyle of Richmond Bouricius of Burlington Cross of Winooski Edwards of Swanton

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 255 Emmons of Springfield Levin of Hartland Pugh of South Burlington Flaherty of South Burlington Lippert of Hinesburg Rivero of Milton Follett of Springfield Little of Shelburne Rusten of Halifax Fox of Essex Livingston of Manchester Schaefer of Colchester Fyfe of Newport City Mackinnon of Sharon Seibert of Norwich Gervais of Enosburg Mallary of Brookfield Severance of Colchester Ginevan of Middlebury Marron of Stowe Sheltra of Derby Gretkowski of Burlington Masland of Thetford Smith of Sudbury Hathaway of Barton Mazzariello of Rutland City Steele of Waterbury Heath of Westford McGrath of Ferrisburgh Stevens of Newbury Hingtgen of Burlington McNamara of Burlington Suchmann of Chester Holmes of Bethel Milkey of Brattleboro Sullivan of Burlington Hooker of Rutland City Miller of Shaftsbury Sweaney of Windsor Howrigan of Fairfield Milne of Washington Symington of Jericho Hube of Londonderry Molloy of Arlington Towne of Berlin Hummel of Underhill Morrissey of Bennington Tracy of Burlington Hyde of Fayston Neiman of Georgia Vincent of Waterbury Jordan of Middlesex Nitka of Ludlow Vinton of Colchester Kainen of Hartford Nuovo of Middlebury Voyer of Morristown Keenan of St. Albans City Osman of Plainfield Weiss of Northfield Kehler of Pomfret Palmer of Pownal Westman of Cambridge Kinsey of Craftsbury Paquin of Fairfax Wheeler of Burlington Kitzmiller of Montpelier Parizo of Essex Wisell of Bristol Krasnow of Charlotte Partridge of Windham Woodward of Johnson Kreitzer of Rutland City Perry of Richford Zuckerman of Burlington LaBarge of Grand Isle Poirier of Barre City Lafayette of Burlington Postman of Brownington Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are: Bourdeau of Hyde Park Rep. DePoy of Rutland City explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: Risky? Maybe – no more risky than the underlying bill. The best way? I don’t know. I’d like to find out. The way the people of this state want it? YES!! We have said all along we only wanted people from Vermont on this issue. This amendment would give the people the chance they want…not want… Demand.” Rep. Sheltra of Derby explained her vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: This amendment does not guarantee me, or my constituents, that other Constitutional rights may not be subverted during the process.” Rep. Randall of Bradford moved that the House adjourn until August 29, 2000, which motion the Speaker ruled out of order, in that it is in violation of 256 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 Chapter II, Article 6, of the Vermont Constitution, which says that neither the House or Senate may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Reps. Flory of Pittsford, Schiavone of Shelburne and Starr of Troy moved to amend the bill by striking all after the enacting clause and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: Sec.1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS The Legislature hereby finds and declares: (1) That marriage is and ought to remain a legally recognized union of one man and one woman. (2) That individuals may suffer inequities and could be denied certain benefits and protections available only to married couples; (3) That there are other caring and supporting relationships between two people, regardless of gender, including but not limited to elderly siblings, grand-parent and adult grand-child, who may thereby also be denied the benefits and protections available to married couples; (4) That the General Assembly of the State of Vermont should and does recognize the potential for the inequity of affording benefits and protections to married couples which are not available to these other domestic units, and resolves to rectify this potential inequity in a reasonable and deliberative process through means which do not undermine our society’s historical and religious concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Sec. 2. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND IMPLEMENTATION (a) It is the purpose of this act to afford benefits, protections and responsibilities to domestic units, other than married couples, and to implement the same in a reasonable and deliberative process in three stages as follows: (1) On July 1, 2000, the provisions of 15 V.S.A. § 1303, as added by this act, which extend to domestic units the benefits, protections and responsibilities pertaining to health care decisions, hospital visitation, designation of anatomical gifts, disposal of remains at death and suits for wrongful death, shall take effect. (2) On July 1, 2001, the provisions of 15 V.S.A. § 1304 (a), as added by this act, which extend to domestic units those benefits, protections and responsibilities currently provided only to married people and which may be

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 257 obtained by others only through amendment to existing state statutes, and if amended accordingly by the General Assembly, shall take effect. (3) On July 1, 2002, the provisions of 15 V.S.A. § 1304 (b), as added by this act, which extend to domestic units the benefits, protections and responsibilities currently bestowed automatically on married people but which may be obtained by contractual arrangement of the parties, and if so authorized by statute of the General Assembly where necessary, shall take effect. (b) It is not the purpose of this act to expand or affect in any way the existing and traditional institution of marriage. Nothing in this act shall be construed to amend, modify or alter the existing laws, benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities, as they pertain in the state of Vermont to marriage between one man and one woman. Sec. 3. 15 V.S.A. chapter 25 is added to read: Chapter 25 DOMESTIC UNITS § 1301 DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this chapter: (1) “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of Health. (2) “Contract document” means a document issued by the Commissioner of Health that certifies that the parties named on the document have contracted to establish a domestic unit in this state in compliance with this chapter. (3) “Domestic unit” means two who have entered into a contract to form a domestic unit for mutual benefit and support under the provisions of section 1302 of this title. (4) “Marriage” means the legally recognized union of one man and one woman. §1302. DOMESTIC UNIT; CREATION; DISSOLUTION; COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH; DUTIES (a) To establish a domestic unit, two individuals shall apply on documents provided by the Commissioner of Health, on which the individuals affirm thereon that: (1) each of the parties consents to the formation of a domestic unit, and that the consent of neither party has been obtained by force, fraud or duress; (2) each of the parties is at least 18 years old; (3) neither of the parties is married nor a party to any other domestic unit; and 258 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 (4) the parties meet the residency requirements for marriage in this state. (b) A domestic unit contract document shall be signed by the parties in the presence of at least one disinterested witness and acknowledged before a notary. The contract shall be filed by the parties with the Commissioner of Health, who shall provide each of the parties with a certified copy of the domestic unit contract. (c) The Commissioner of Health shall provide domestic unit contract documents to all town clerks. The commissioner shall keep all records of domestic units in accordance with the requirements for other vital records pursuant to section 5001 of Title 18. (d) A domestic unit may be dissolved by either or both parties. The parties, jointly or individually, may apply to the Commissioner of Health for a certificate of dissolution of a domestic unit contract, on forms prepared by the commissioner, which shall set forth, at a minimum, provisions for the dissolution of all assets and liabilities of the parties to the domestic unit contract. If the dissolution is not contested, the completed form shall be signed by the parties before at least one disinterested witness and acknowledged before a notary. In the event the parties do not agree to the terms of the dissolution of the contract or to an appropriate distribution of all assets and liabilities, the Superior Court for the Superior Court district in which at least one of the parties resides shall have jurisdiction to order the dissolution and determine an equitable division of the assets and liabilities of the parties. Thirty days after the issuance of its judgment, or upon final determination of any appeal, the Superior Court shall forward a copy of its final order to the Commissioner of Health who shall issue a certificate of dissolution. §1303 HEALTH CARE -BENEFITS, PROTECTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on and after July 1, 2000 the following list of statutory provisions affecting the rights, status, or obligations of spouses shall apply in like manner to parties of domestic units authorized under this chapter: (1) causes of action, excluding divorce, which are recognized at law which are conditioned upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, dramshop, or other torts and actions under contracts; and (2) laws relating to emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation, and notification, including the Patient’s Bill of Rights (18 V.S.A. §1852) and the Nursing Home Resident’s Bill of Rights (33 V.S.A. §7301), and designation of anatomical gifts and disposal of remains at death.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 259 § 1304 DETERMINATION OF CONTRACTUAL AND STATUTORY BENEFITS, PROTECTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. (a) The staff of the Legislative Council of the General Assembly shall identify and review all benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are provided by law to married couples which are not currently available to members of domestic units and cannot be contractually obtained. With respect to each of the benefits, protections, and responsibilities, the staff of the Legislative Council shall prepare draft legislation to extend these benefits to domestic units, and to provide a process for dissolution of such domestic units if applicable. The staff of the Legislative Council shall reports its findings, recommendations and draft legislation to the General Assembly on or before January 10, 2001. Upon receipt of the report of the staff of the Legislative Council, the General Assembly shall enact such amendments to the laws of the state as it deems appropriate to extend such statutory benefits, protections and responsibilities to domestic units to take effect on and after July 1, 2001. (b) The staff of the Legislative Council shall also identify all such benefits, protections, and responsibilities that may be made available to such domestic units through private contractual agreements. If provisions of current law prohibit or limit such contracts, the staff of the Legislative Council shall identify such provisions, recommend any appropriate statutory changes, and prepare draft legislation for that purpose. The General Assembly shall enact such amendments as it deems appropriate to extend such benefits, protections and responsibilities by contractual agreement to domestic units to take effect on and after July 1, 2002. Sec. 4. 15 V.S.A. §5 is amended to read: § 5 MARRIAGE ENTERED INTO IN ANOTHER STATE (a) If a person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state is prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state and such person goes into another state or country and there contracts a marriage prohibited and declared void by the laws of this state, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in this state. (b) This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction regarding legal marriage that does not also meet the requirements of this chapter. Sec. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This act shall take effect July 1, 2000. 260 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as recommended by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, et al? Rep. Little of Shelburne demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. Recess At three o’clock and thirty-five minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker declared a recess until four o’clock and forty-five minutes in the afternoon. At four o’clock and forty-five minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order. Pending the call of the roll, Reps. Starr of Troy and Schiavone of Shelburne moved that the House substitute an amendment for the amendment offered by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, as follows: By striking all after the enacting clause and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: Sec. 1. ADVISORY REFERENDUM There shall be submitted to the voters of the State of Vermont, on a ballot prepared by the Secretary of State at the General Election in November 2000, the questions: Shall the General Assembly amend the laws of the state to allow couples of the same sex to marry? Shall the General Assembly provide under the laws of the state for a domestic partnership under which couples of the same sex may not marry but would have all the benefits, privileges and responsibilities as married couples? Shall the General Assembly initiate an amendment to the Vermont Constitution providing that marriage may be only between one man and one woman? Pending the question, Shall the House substitute an amendment for the amendment offered by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, et al? Rep. Schiavone of Shelburne demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the House substitute an amendment for the amendment offered by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, et al? was decided in the negative. Yeas, 56. Nays, 91. Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allard of St. Albans Town Brown of Walden DePoy of Rutland Angell of Randolph Clark of St. Johnsbury Deuel of West Rutland Baker of West Rutland Cleland of Northfield Flory of Pittsford Barney of Highgate Crawford of Burke Freed of Dorset

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 261 Gervais of Enosburg Maslack of Poultney Schiavone of Shelburne Gray of Barre Town Mazur of South Burlington Sheltra of Derby Hathaway of Barton Metzger of Milton Sherman of St. Johnsbury Helm of Castleton Morrissey of Bennington Smith of New Haven Holmes of Bethel Mullin of Rutland Town Starr of Troy Houston of Ferrisburgh Neiman of Georgia Steele of Waterbury Howrigan of Fairfield O'Donnell of Vernon Sweetser of Essex Hube of Londonderry Palmer of Pownal Towne of Berlin Hudson of Lyndon Peaslee of Guildhall Valsangiacomo of Barre City Hyde of Fayston Pembroke of Bennington Waite of Pawlet Johnson of Canaan Pike of Mendon Willett of St. Albans City Krasnow of Charlotte Quaid of Williston Winters of Williamstown Larocque of Barnet Randall of Bradford Wood of Brandon Larrabee of Danville Robb of Swanton Young of Orwell Lehman of Hartford Rogers of Castleton Those who voted in the negative are:

Alfano of Calais Hooker of Rutland City Paquin of Fairfax Anderson of Woodstock Hummel of Underhill Parizo of Essex Aswad of Burlington Jordan of Middlesex Partridge of Windham Atkins of Winooski Kainen of Hartford Perry of Richford Barbieri of Wallingford Keenan of St. Albans City Poirier of Barre City Blanchard of Essex Kehler of Pomfret Postman of Brownington Bouricius of Burlington Kinsey of Craftsbury Pugh of South Burlington Bristol of Brattleboro Kitzmiller of Montpelier Richardson of Weathersfield Brooks of Montpelier Koch of Barre Town Rivero of Milton Buckland of Newport Town Krawczyk of Bennington Rusten of Halifax Carmolli of Rutland City Kreitzer of Rutland City Schaefer of Colchester Colvin of Bennington LaBarge of Grand Isle Seibert of Norwich Corren of Burlington Lafayette of Burlington Severance of Colchester Costello of Brattleboro Levin of Hartland Smith of Sudbury Cross of Winooski Lippert of Hinesburg Stevens of Newbury Dakin of Colchester Little of Shelburne Suchmann of Chester Darrow of Newfane Livingston of Manchester Sullivan of Burlington Darrow of Dummerston Mackinnon of Sharon Sweaney of Windsor Deen of Westminster Mallary of Brookfield Symington of Jericho Dominick of Starksboro Marron of Stowe Tracy of Burlington Doyle of Richmond Masland of Thetford Vincent of Waterbury Edwards of Swanton Mazzariello of Rutland City Vinton of Colchester Emmons of Springfield McGrath of Ferrisburgh Voyer of Morristown Flaherty of South Burlington McNamara of Burlington Weiss of Northfield Follett of Springfield Milkey of Brattleboro Westman of Cambridge Fox of Essex Miller of Shaftsbury Wheeler of Burlington Fyfe of Newport City Milne of Washington Wisell of Bristol Ginevan of Middlebury Molloy of Arlington Woodward of Johnson Gretkowski of Burlington Nitka of Ludlow Zuckerman of Burlington Heath of Westford Nuovo of Middlebury Hingtgen of Burlington Osman of Plainfield 262 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000

Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are: Bourdeau of Hyde Park Hoag of Woodford The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the recurring question, Shall the bill as amended, as recommended by Reps. Flory of Pittsford, et al? was decided in the negative. Yeas, 29. Nays, 118. Those who voted in the affirmative are: Allard of St. Albans Town Howrigan of Fairfield Richardson of Weathersfield Angell of Randolph Koch of Barre Town Schaefer of Colchester Barney of Highgate Krawczyk of Bennington Schiavone of Shelburne Cleland of Northfield Larocque of Barnet Starr of Troy Colvin of Bennington Maslack of Poultney Valsangiacomo of Barre City Flory of Pittsford Mazur of South Burlington Willett of St. Albans City Follett of Springfield Metzger of Milton Winters of Williamstown Freed of Dorset O'Donnell of Vernon Wood of Brandon Gray of Barre Town Palmer of Pownal Young of Orwell Houston of Ferrisburgh Quaid of Williston Those who voted in the negative are: Alfano of Calais Edwards of Swanton Kreitzer of Rutland City Anderson of Woodstock Emmons of Springfield LaBarge of Grand Isle Aswad of Burlington Flaherty of South Burlington Lafayette of Burlington Atkins of Winooski Fox of Essex Larrabee of Danville Baker of West Rutland Fyfe of Newport City Lehman of Hartford Barbieri of Wallingford Gervais of Enosburg Levin of Hartland Blanchard of Essex Ginevan of Middlebury Lippert of Hinesburg Bouricius of Burlington Gretkowski of Burlington Little of Shelburne Bristol of Brattleboro Hathaway of Barton Livingston of Manchester Brooks of Montpelier Heath of Westford Mackinnon of Sharon Brown of Walden Helm of Castleton Mallary of Brookfield Buckland of Newport Town Hingtgen of Burlington Marron of Stowe Carmolli of Rutland City Holmes of Bethel Masland of Thetford Clark of St. Johnsbury Hooker of Rutland City Mazzariello of Rutland City Corren of Burlington Hube of Londonderry McGrath of Ferrisburgh Costello of Brattleboro Hudson of Lyndon McNamara of Burlington Crawford of Burke Hummel of Underhill Milkey of Brattleboro Cross of Winooski Hyde of Fayston Miller of Shaftsbury Dakin of Colchester Johnson of Canaan Milne of Washington Darrow of Newfane Jordan of Middlesex Molloy of Arlington Darrow of Dummerston Kainen of Hartford Morrissey of Bennington Deen of Westminster Keenan of St. Albans City Mullin of Rutland Town DePoy of Rutland Kehler of Pomfret Neiman of Georgia Deuel of West Rutland Kinsey of Craftsbury Nitka of Ludlow Dominick of Starksboro Kitzmiller of Montpelier Nuovo of Middlebury Doyle of Richmond Krasnow of Charlotte Osman of Plainfield

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 263 Paquin of Fairfax Rusten of Halifax Towne of Berlin Parizo of Essex Seibert of Norwich Tracy of Burlington Partridge of Windham Severance of Colchester Vincent of Waterbury Peaslee of Guildhall Sheltra of Derby Vinton of Colchester Pembroke of Bennington Sherman of St. Johnsbury Voyer of Morristown Perry of Richford Smith of New Haven Waite of Pawlet Pike of Mendon Smith of Sudbury Weiss of Northfield Poirier of Barre City Steele of Waterbury Westman of Cambridge Postman of Brownington Stevens of Newbury Wheeler of Burlington Pugh of South Burlington Suchmann of Chester Wisell of Bristol Randall of Bradford Sullivan of Burlington Woodward of Johnson Rivero of Milton Sweaney of Windsor Zuckerman of Burlington Robb of Swanton Sweetser of Essex Rogers of Castleton Symington of Jericho Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are: Bourdeau of Hyde Park Hoag of Woodford Rep. Metzger of Milton explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: I voted for the Flory amendment because if comes the closest to ending discrimination of all people under our marriage laws, additionally, and more importantly, it does so in such a time frame to lessen nature of such a momentous change. I am a community leader in Milton and I told the people of my district two months ago what kind of legislation I would support on this issue. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am doing today. Damn the Supreme Court, I’m not going to tear this state apart.” Remarks Journalized On motion of Rep. Milne of Washington, remarks by Rep. Lippert of Hinesburg were ordered printed in the Journal. “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Flory’s strike-all amendment she indicates is designed in part to remove “sexual activity” from the bill. At the same time, Representative Flory’s strike-all amendment, unlike the bill of the House Judiciary Committee, fails to acknowledge that there has been discrimination and inequity toward gay and lesbian couples, currently or historically. I think it’s important to put a face on this. I think it’s important to ask who it is that we’re talking about; who it is that we’ve been discussing. I’ve had the privilege in my own life of coming to the process – through a struggle at times – the process of coming to identify myself as a gay man. I’ve had the privilege 264 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 of developing a deep, devoted, loving, caring relationship with another man. I think it’s very important as we listen, as we debate and as we make decisions that you understand what the reality is about gay and lesbian people, gay and lesbian couples. Our mailboxes have been filled with letter after letter talking about abomination, talking about sinfulness, talking about judgment day coming soon. I’m here to tell you that gay and lesbian people and gay and lesbian couples deserve not only rights, they deserve to be celebrated. Our lives, in the midst of historic prejudice and historic discrimination, are to my view, in some ways, miracles. Think what kind of relationship you would try to establish and how successful it would be to find a loving, committed partner in an environment where you have been barraged on a daily basis, from birth, saying you are sinful or wrong, that something is fundamentally flawed in your nature. It is, in truth, the goodness of gay and lesbian people and of gay and lesbian couples that is a triumph, is a triumph, against discrimination and prejudice. We are not a threat. We are not a threat to traditional marriage. We’re not a threat to your communities. We are, in fact, an asset. We deserve to be welcomed, because in fact we are your neighbors; we are your friends; indeed, we are your family. Numbers of people here have come up and talked to me privately about their gay brother, or lesbian sister, or their child, or their uncle. Part of those conversations are private, at times, because in fact prejudice and discrimination continues to exist in this society. Not everyone feels, even with the laws we have on our books now, not everyone feels able to say with openness and with pride, “Yes, my family member is a gay man or a lesbian woman.” We have made incredible progress in Vermont. And, up until the last two and a half months I would have said, Vermont has more progress than any other state in this country. I have proudly said that. Our nondiscrimination laws, our hate crimes laws, our adoption laws, they all make us proud. There remains afoot in Vermont prejudice against gay men and lesbians. In the last two and a half months I have seen and I have heard, I have been called names in this Chamber, in this building, the likes of which I have never experienced in my life – my personal life or my political life. And, I’ve watched come true what I have always known to be true, that those who stand beside gay and lesbian people as their allies, as people who are going to stand up and say, “Yes, this is wrong,” and “Yes, there should be rights,” they get targeted too. Because, for some people the hate runs that deep, the prejudice runs that far. I’ve watched while members of my committee have made brave

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 265 political decisions to support equality for gay and lesbian people, for gay and lesbian couples and rights for us, and I have watched them be attacked. I have stood there and listened while they have been threatened personally and politically, and I’ve had members of my committee say, “I couldn’t sleep at night; I’ve had knots in my stomach.” I wouldn’t have wished this on any of them, but I am deeply appreciative of the work of my committee members who listened, who struggled, came to hard reached decisions that it’s the right thing to do. Passing the bill that the House Judiciary Committee has brought forward will not end discrimination. It will not end prejudice. It will not end hate, but it will grant rights. We argue about whether they are civil rights or other rights, but I’ll tell you this, they are rights that I don’t have right now and most everyone else in this Chamber does. There’s something strange about sitting in the midst of a deliberative body that is trying to decide whether I and my fellow gay and lesbian Vermonters should get our rights now; should we wait a little longer; should we ask all the people whether or not we deserve to have those rights. Who are we? We are committed, caring, loving individuals in a time when desire for greater commitment, greater love, greater fidelity is needed in our society, and I find it so ironic that rather than being embraced and welcomed we are seen as a threat. We are people, some of us, that in recent times endured the scourge of a terrible epidemic, and even in the midst of that epidemic have reached out and formed relationships, cared for each other, holding each other, sometimes as death has arrived. Don’t tell me about what a committed relationship is and isn’t. I’ve watched my gay brothers care for each other deeply and my lesbian sisters nurse and care. There is no love and no commitment any greater than what I’ve seen, what I know. Our relationships deserve every protection that our bill would grant. Our relationships deserve those rights, those protections. We don’t need to study it any longer. We don’t need to put it off and let someone else decide. We have a historic opportunity, and I ask us to put aside this amendment, which I trust is well intentioned, but I think flawed. I ask you to put aside the rest of these amendments as well. Let us move forward putting into law a bill that will set aside traditional marriage in order to meet the needs of those who somehow feel threatened, but will find a way through this thicket and will grant rights, will give a message to our community that it is time to take another piece of the hatred and the discrimination and the prejudice and remove it, and at the same time give an affirmation to our community about what it means to have full inclusivity, to embrace our neighbors, to affirm committed, loving relationships and to affirm our common humanity. 266 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 Thank you, Mr. Speaker.” Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Reps. Corren of Burlington and Deen of Westminster moved to amend the bill, as follows: By striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Sec. 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT The General Assembly finds that it is necessary to amend the existing state marriage statutes in light of the Vermont Supreme Court’s holding in Baker v. State . The Court has determined that Vermont’s current system of conferring benefits and privileges to certain persons who may marry under state law, but denying those benefits and privileges to others without a reasonable and just basis, is a violation of the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution which this Legislature must remedy, and that the state is required to confer to gay and lesbian couples the common benefits and privileges that are derived from civil marriage under state law. Sec. 2. 15 V.S.A. § 1 is amended to read: § 1. MAN FORBIDDEN TO MARRY RELATIVES VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE A man shall not marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister Marriages contracted by two persons are valid without regard to the gender of either party, provided that the parties meet the marriage requirements set forth in this chapter and chapter 105 of Title 18. Sec. 3. 15 V.S.A. § 2 is amended to read: § 2. WOMAN PERSON FORBIDDEN TO MARRY RELATIVES (a) A woman shall not marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, or mother's brother, mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister. (b) A man shall not marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother or mother's brother. Sec. 4. 15 V.S.A. § 4 is amended to read: § 4. MARRIAGE CONTRACTED WHILE ONE IN FORCE

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 267 Marriages contracted while either party has another wife or husband is married to another living party shall be void. Sec. 5. 15 V.S.A. § 6 is amended to read: § 6. MARRIAGE VOID IN STATE OF RESIDENCE A marriage shall not be contracted in this state by a person residing and intending to continue to reside in another state or jurisdiction, if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other state or jurisdiction. Every marriage solemnized in this state in violation of this section shall be null and void valid. Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as recommended by Reps. Corren of Burlington and Deen of Westminster? Rep. Corren of Burlington demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the House amend the bill, as recommended by Reps. Corren of Burlington and Deen of Westminster? was decided in the negative. Yeas, 22. Nays, 125. Those who voted in the affirmative are: Alfano of Calais Jordan of Middlesex Seibert of Norwich Bouricius of Burlington Krasnow of Charlotte Sullivan of Burlington Bristol of Brattleboro Lafayette of Burlington Sweaney of Windsor Corren of Burlington Mackinnon of Sharon Symington of Jericho Darrow of Newfane Nuovo of Middlebury Tracy of Burlington Darrow of Dummerston Osman of Plainfield Zuckerman of Burlington Deen of Westminster Pugh of South Burlington Hingtgen of Burlington Randall of Bradford Those who voted in the negative are: Allard of St. Albans Town Crawford of Burke Gray of Barre Town Anderson of Woodstock Cross of Winooski Gretkowski of Burlington Angell of Randolph Dakin of Colchester Hathaway of Barton Aswad of Burlington DePoy of Rutland Heath of Westford Atkins of Winooski Deuel of West Rutland Helm of Castleton Baker of West Rutland Dominick of Starksboro Holmes of Bethel Barbieri of Wallingford Doyle of Richmond Hooker of Rutland City Barney of Highgate Edwards of Swanton Houston of Ferrisburgh Blanchard of Essex Emmons of Springfield Howrigan of Fairfield Brooks of Montpelier Flaherty of South Burlington Hube of Londonderry Brown of Walden Flory of Pittsford Hudson of Lyndon Buckland of Newport Town Follett of Springfield Hummel of Underhill Carmolli of Rutland City Fox of Essex Hyde of Fayston Clark of St. Johnsbury Freed of Dorset Johnson of Canaan Cleland of Northfield Fyfe of Newport City Kainen of Hartford Colvin of Bennington Gervais of Enosburg Keenan of St. Albans City Costello of Brattleboro Ginevan of Middlebury Kehler of Pomfret 268 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 Kinsey of Craftsbury Molloy of Arlington Sheltra of Derby Kitzmiller of Montpelier Morrissey of Bennington Sherman of St. Johnsbury Koch of Barre Town Mullin of Rutland Town Smith of New Haven Krawczyk of Bennington Neiman of Georgia Smith of Sudbury Kreitzer of Rutland City Nitka of Ludlow Starr of Troy LaBarge of Grand Isle O'Donnell of Vernon Steele of Waterbury Larocque of Barnet Palmer of Pownal Stevens of Newbury Larrabee of Danville Paquin of Fairfax Suchmann of Chester Lehman of Hartford Parizo of Essex Sweetser of Essex Levin of Hartland Partridge of Windham Towne of Berlin Lippert of Hinesburg Peaslee of Guildhall Valsangiacomo of Barre City Little of Shelburne Pembroke of Bennington Vincent of Waterbury Livingston of Manchester Perry of Richford Vinton of Colchester Mallary of Brookfield Pike of Mendon Voyer of Morristown Marron of Stowe Poirier of Barre City Waite of Pawlet Maslack of Poultney Postman of Brownington Weiss of Northfield Masland of Thetford Quaid of Williston Westman of Cambridge Mazur of South Burlington Richardson of Weathersfield Wheeler of Burlington Mazzariello of Rutland City Rivero of Milton Willett of St. Albans City McGrath of Ferrisburgh Robb of Swanton Winters of Williamstown McNamara of Burlington Rogers of Castleton Wisell of Bristol Metzger of Milton Rusten of Halifax Wood of Brandon Milkey of Brattleboro Schaefer of Colchester Woodward of Johnson Miller of Shaftsbury Schiavone of Shelburne Young of Orwell Milne of Washington Severance of Colchester Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are: Bourdeau of Hyde Park Hoag of Woodford Rep. Randall of Bradford explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: Quack. Quack.” Rep. Deuel of West Rutland explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: Two things are needed before this bill should pass. The first is an overwhelming vote against same sex-marriage, which we now have and the second is to take the Judiciary plans on the road and explain it to Vermonters.” Rep. Suchmann of Chester explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: I support this amendment enthusiastically, without qualification. To me, it represents an appropriate response, not only to the court’s decision – but more importantly, to the requirements of my conscience.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 269 But my vote was “no” because I have come to realize that the people of Vermont are not yet ready to share the blessings of marriage with couples of the same gender. This includes an overwhelming majority of my own constituents to whom the word “marriage” has a very special meaning. Edmund Burke instructs me that I owe these people the benefits of my judgment, but he also adds that it is my duty, above all, to prefer the people’s interest to my own.” And that is what my vote reflects. Thank you Mr. Speaker.” Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Perry of Richford moved to amend the bill, as follows: First: In Sec. 1, page 4, line 14, subdivision (11), after the words: “opposite-sex couples” by adding the following: “who are not blood-relatives” and by striking the following: “same-sex” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “other”; and in the last sentence, by striking the following: “As held in Baker v. State , the” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “The” and by adding after the word “heterosexual” the following: “, nonrelated” Second: In Sec. 1, page 5, lines 1 and 2, subdivision (13), by striking the following: “same-sex” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “eligible” Third: In Sec. 1, page 5, lines 6 and 7, subdivision (14), by striking the following: “same-sex” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “eligible” Fourth: In Sec. 1, page 5, subdivision (15), by striking the last sentence in its entirety Fifth: In Sec. 1, page 5, line 20, subdivision (16), by striking the following: “same-sex” and inserting after the word “couples” the following: “who are not eligible to marry” Sixth: In Sec. 2, page 6, line 4, subsection (a), by striking the following: “same-sex” ; and on line 10, subsection (b), by striking the following “blood- relatives” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “couples” Seventh: In Sec. 3, page 7, line 11, subdivision (2), by adding after the words “same sex” the following: “or blood-relatives” Eighth: In Sec. 3, page 7, by striking statutory section 15 V.S.A. § 1203 in its entirety and renumbering the remaining sections to be numerically correct 270 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 Ninth: In Sec. 26, page 31, line 20, by adding after the words “provide two” the word “eligible” and after the word “persons” by striking the following: “who are blood-relatives” Tenth: In Sec. 26, page 33, lines 12 through 14, by striking subdivision (3) in its entirety, and by renumbering subdivision (4) to be subdivision (3) Eleventh: In Sec. 36, page 41, line 16, by striking the following “same-sex” Which was decided in the negative on a Division vote. Yeas, 16. Nays, 98. Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Schiavone of Shelburne demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? was decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 79. Nays, 68. Those who voted in the affirmative are: Alfano of Calais Hummel of Underhill Parizo of Essex Anderson of Woodstock Hyde of Fayston Partridge of Windham Aswad of Burlington Jordan of Middlesex Perry of Richford Atkins of Winooski Kainen of Hartford Poirier of Barre City Barbieri of Wallingford Keenan of St. Albans City Postman of Brownington Bouricius of Burlington Kehler of Pomfret Pugh of South Burlington Bristol of Brattleboro Kinsey of Craftsbury Rivero of Milton Brooks of Montpelier Kitzmiller of Montpelier Rusten of Halifax Carmolli of Rutland City Krasnow of Charlotte Seibert of Norwich Corren of Burlington Kreitzer of Rutland City Severance of Colchester Costello of Brattleboro Lafayette of Burlington Smith of Sudbury Cross of Winooski Lehman of Hartford Stevens of Newbury Dakin of Colchester Levin of Hartland Suchmann of Chester Darrow of Newfane Lippert of Hinesburg Sullivan of Burlington Darrow of Dummerston Little of Shelburne Sweaney of Windsor Deen of Westminster Livingston of Manchester Symington of Jericho Dominick of Starksboro Mallary of Brookfield Tracy of Burlington Doyle of Richmond Marron of Stowe Vincent of Waterbury Edwards of Swanton Masland of Thetford Vinton of Colchester Emmons of Springfield Mazzariello of Rutland City Voyer of Morristown Flaherty of South Burlington Milkey of Brattleboro Weiss of Northfield Fox of Essex Miller of Shaftsbury Wheeler of Burlington Fyfe of Newport City Milne of Washington Wisell of Bristol Ginevan of Middlebury Nitka of Ludlow Woodward of Johnson Heath of Westford Nuovo of Middlebury Zuckerman of Burlington Hingtgen of Burlington Osman of Plainfield Hooker of Rutland City Paquin of Fairfax Rep. Metzger of Milton explained his vote as follows: Those who voted in the negative are: Allard of St. Albans Town Angell of Randolph Baker of West Rutland

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 271 Barney of Highgate Hudson of Lyndon Quaid of Williston Blanchard of Essex Johnson of Canaan Randall of Bradford Brown of Walden Koch of Barre Town Richardson of Weathersfield Buckland of Newport Town Krawczyk of Bennington Robb of Swanton Clark of St. Johnsbury LaBarge of Grand Isle Rogers of Castleton Cleland of Northfield Larocque of Barnet Schaefer of Colchester Colvin of Bennington Larrabee of Danville Schiavone of Shelburne Crawford of Burke Mackinnon of Sharon Sheltra of Derby DePoy of Rutland Maslack of Poultney Sherman of St. Johnsbury Deuel of West Rutland Mazur of South Burlington Smith of New Haven Flory of Pittsford McGrath of Ferrisburgh Starr of Troy Follett of Springfield McNamara of Burlington Steele of Waterbury Freed of Dorset Metzger of Milton Sweetser of Essex Gervais of Enosburg Molloy of Arlington Towne of Berlin Gray of Barre Town Morrissey of Bennington Valsangiacomo of Barre City Gretkowski of Burlington Mullin of Rutland Town Waite of Pawlet Hathaway of Barton Neiman of Georgia Westman of Cambridge Helm of Castleton O'Donnell of Vernon Willett of St. Albans City Holmes of Bethel Palmer of Pownal Winters of Williamstown Houston of Ferrisburgh Peaslee of Guildhall Wood of Brandon Howrigan of Fairfield Pembroke of Bennington Young of Orwell Hube of Londonderry Pike of Mendon Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are: Bourdeau of Hyde Park Hoag of Woodford Rep. Metzger of Milton explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: We are in this predicament today because according to the Supreme Court we haven’t granted the common benefit protection and security of marriage to all citizens of our state. This bill “An act relating to civil unions” still leaves many Vermonters unprotected and without the benefits afforded others in our society.” I am also appalled that a member of this body is running a dollar-a-guess vote on the final outcome of this important issue. I am ashamed of all the members taking part and I am concerned of the impact on the final vote.” Rep. Perry of Richford explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: This bill is not my idea of what should become the law of our state. I believe we are capable of better, but not in the time available. 272 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 My vote in favor of third reading is more a vote of confidence in our House Judiciary committee than one of courage or conscience. I hope the Senate will match their dedicated, thoughtful approach. Time will tell.” Rep. Winters of Williamstown explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: This is the first time in my six years here that I have felt compelled to explain my vote. Mr. Speaker, I have spent over sixty years in this state and I hope my grandchildren will be raised here. But, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to think that they may be raised in a state that considers homosexuality as moral and normal.” Adjournment At nine o’clock and thirty minutes in the evening, on motion of Rep. Fyfe of Newport City, the House adjourned until tomorrow at nine o’clock and thirty minutes in the forenoon.