Options

• Plaintiffs return to court.
• Court issues injunction ordering same-sex marriage licenses.
  

• Plaintiffs return to court before measure can be voted on.
• Court issues injunction ordering same-sex marriage.
• Unknown as to what voters would do if measure were on ballot.
• Even if voters were to prohibit same-sex marriage, thousands of couples, including out-of-state couples, would have been married.
  

• Baker v. State becomes moot and is dismissed by the court.
• Hundreds of Vermont same-sex couples may marry.
• Thousands of out-of-state gay couples may marry in Vermont.
• Same-sex married couples file lawsuits against federal agencies, other states, municipalities in other states, and private companies.
• Federal grants to Vermont which use the term "marriage" or "spouse" may be called into question because of DOMA.
• Interstate compacts may be implicated because of mini-DOMA’s.
• Uniform state codes may be implicated for the same reasons.
• Vermont may be drawn into lawsuits with the federal government.
• Vermont may be drawn into lawsuits with other states.
• Vermont spouses may have to show birth certificates to prove male-female status if federal agencies or other states demand it.
• Courts will have to decide if all of the legal presumptions and rules previously applied to male-female marriages will also apply to same-sex marriages.
  

• The Vermont Supreme Court asked the Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, pass a comprehensive domestic partner law, or find some other manner of remedying the constitutional violation, giving lawmakers "reasonable" time to do so.
• This is similar to the U.S. Supreme Court ordering the defendant in Brown v. Board of Education to integrate the school system with "all deliberate speed" which turned out to be 13 years.
• In view of potential effects on private businesses, teenage marriages, federal grants, and interstate compacts, as well as the potential desirability of examining same-sex relationships within the larger context of other changing family structures, the Legislature may wish to convene a Joint Select Task Force on the Changing Family to study these issues further. The Task Force could conduct research, hold hearings, consult with experts, and issue a report and recommendations to the Legislature. If the report were filed in December 2000, the Legislature could take action in 2001. If the report were not filed until after May 2001, action could be taken in 2002.
• Plaintiffs would return to court to ask that the injunction issue.
• The court would decide if it was "reasonable" for the Legislature to gather more information before selecting a remedy. Since the court took more than a year to decide the appeal, it is questionable whether it would require the Legislature to act more quickly.
  

• The Supreme Court suggested that a comprehensive domestic partnership act might satisfy state constitutional requirements.
• Professor Peter Teachout has advised the Legislature that a comprehensive domestic partner act would satisfy the court.
• This advice is similar to that given the Hawaii Legislature by constitutional law Professor Jon Van Dyke in 1996.
• The Attorney General has advised the Legislature that the state could argue in court that such a step was a transitional move as the Legislature continued to explore the consequences and desirability of legalizing same-sex marriage in Vermont.
• A model comprehensive domestic partnership act was drafted by the Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation in 1995 and could be adapted for use in Vermont (similar to S.B. 248).
• The prospects of such a law withstanding constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court would probably depend on four factors: (1) that it extends all benefits and obligations which the state currently extends within its borders to "spouses," "family members" and "dependents," and (2) that the legislation contain specific findings regarding the potential adverse consequences to the state and others if same-sex marriage were legalized at this time (e.g., federal and interstate conflict, etc.), and (3) making a new domestic partnership law available to same and opposite sex couples who meet the eligibility criteria; and (4) asking the Governor to convene a Task Force on Domestic Partnership Implementation to monitor the effects of the new law and to make recommendations for possible legislative changes next year.
• Professor Teachout advised the Legislature of the need to "justify the distinction" if it acts now to adopt domestic partnership rather than immediately legalizing same-sex marriage.
• Failure to make domestic partnership gender-neutral could subject the statute to constitutional challenges by heterosexual unmarried couples who are willing to assume all of the obligations under state law but who, for personal or religious reasons, do not want to be required to enter a marriage contract.
  

• If the Legislature were to extend only some of the benefits and obligations of marriage under state law to domestic partners, the court probably would find the remedy inadequate and would therefore issue an injunction legalizing same-sex marriages.
• The Legislature could, however, enact a limited domestic partner act in addition to a comprehensive dp act, thus giving unmarried couples limited protections if they assume limited obligations, and full rights under state law if they assume full marital obligations.
• Many unmarried couples, including many same-sex couples, might prefer a limited domestic partnership act.
  

• To augment a domestic partnership statute, "marital status" and "domestic partner status" could be added to state civil rights laws.
• A new law could be enacted requiring business which contract with the state to treat domestic partners the same as they treat married couples in employment, housing, or consumer practices.