Vermont's civil unions law continues to face challenges after roughly a year of debate waged on the dual fronts of legislative chambers and car bumpers.
The most recent source of controversy centers around the Reciprocal Benefits Proposal, a bill introduced by Vermont House Judiciary Committee Chair Margaret Flory, R-Pittsfield.
If passed, it would effectively repeal civil unions and replace them with "reciprocal partnerships."
The bill defines its purpose as "to provide couples who are not eligible to marry the opportunity to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married couples."
Such an arrangement would extend many of the rights granted to married persons -- and currently available to same-sex partners in civil unions -- to pairs of relatives hoping to achieve additional support. Such cases typically involve illness or the long-term cohabitation of a parent and grown child.
The legal protections available to reciprocal partners would come in the form of guaranteed inheritance, hospital visitation, dual property ownership as granted to spouses and coverage as married persons in health insurance plans.
Such rights would come, however, at the expense of the ceremonial aspects currently afforded by the civil unions policy.
To obtain a reciprocal partnership, a pair of family members or same-sex couple would only have to meet a few basic qualifications (to be at least 18 years of age and not eligible for marriage, etc), make a trip the Department of Health and sign a partnership license with a notary and two witnesses must be in attendance.
Under the current civil union law, partners go through a procedure closer to that of marriage -- they must receive a license from a town clerk and then allow a justice of the peace or clergy member to certify the union license.
Organizations such as Vermont Freedom to Marry Action Committee oppose the bill, pointing out that blood relations are already eligible for many of the potential advantages of a reciprocal partnership under the existing reciprocal benefits.
"Our position is that no one has yet applied for the currently existing reciprocal benefits program. There's already a venue for [relatives seeking benefits]," Jackie Flannigan, a grassroots organizer with VFMAC told The Dartmouth.
"We were hoping that they [the opponents of the act] would leave civil unions alone, but it's apparent that isn't happening," Flannigan noted.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Connecticut River in New Hampshire, a March 29 meeting of the House yielded the defeat of a bill that would have prohibited acceptance of civil unions performed in Vermont.
Opponents of the bill registered a landslide victory of 275-88.
As of yet, no states have followed Vermont's lead in legalizing civil unions, although several, including Nevada and Nebraska, have approved bills which define marriage in such a manner as to prevent recognition of civil unions forged in other states.
