December 21, 1999
Web posted at: 9:06 a.m. EST (1406 GMT)

In this story: A controversial issue on the court Attorney: We 'can't be denied full range of protections' '97 filing spurred decision Same-sex union issue was on the table in Hawaii RELATED STORIES, SITES

MONTPELIER, Vermont -- The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Monday that gay couples must be granted the same benefits and protections given married couples, a decision called the first of its kind in the nation.

VIDEO Correspondent Aram Roston looks at the Vermont ruling on gay marriage Real 28K 80K Windows Media 28K 80K     MESSAGE BOARD Gay rights

The court said the Legislature will determine whether such benefits will come through formal marriage or a system of domestic partnerships.

"We hold that the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law," the Vermont court's decision said.

"Whether this ultimately takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature," the ruling said.

"Whatever system is chosen, however, must conform with the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and security of the law," the ruling added.

All five justices agreed that gay couples should receive the same benefits as granted married couples, but the chief justice's reasoning divided the court.

The decision, written by Chief Justice Jeffrey Amestoy, acknowledges the controversy swirling around the issue of same-sex marriages.

It is "a question that the court well knows arouses deeply felt religious, moral, and political beliefs," the justices said in their decision.

But three of the justices joined a concurring opinion written by Justice John Dooley that challenged the reasoning behind Amestoy's decision.

And Justice Denise Johnson wrote a separate opinion saying the court had not gone far enough. She said the court recognizes that gays are entitled to certain rights and "yet declines to give them any relief other than an exhortation to the Legislature to deal with the problem."

Johnson said she would require town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Monday's ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court since the Vermont court based its decision on the state constitution. The Vermont Supreme Court is the state's only appeals court.

Advocates of same-sex marriage had high hopes for the Vermont case because the state is considered a leader in laws protecting gay rights. Vermont has passed laws prohibiting discrimination against gays in employment, housing, and public accommodations and a law that punishes hate crimes against homosexuals.

Jennifer Levi, a lawyer at Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in Boston who worked as co-counsel on the Vermont case, said that "what the court seems to be saying is that our families can't be denied the full range of protections that come along with civil marriage."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed arguments opposing gay marriage, said the court "left open the possibility that we will see a marriage statute in Vermont that will impact this kind of arrangement or this kind of relationship."

"This is the first appellate court that has said there is a state constitutional right for same-sex marriage," he said.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has declined to state a position on same-sex marriages, saying that he was awaiting the decision of the court.

But the lieutenant governor, Douglas Racine, and the speaker of the Vermont House, Michael Obuchowski, have said they favor same-sex marriages.

The ruling stems from a suit filed in July 1997 by three couples -- one of gay men and two of lesbians -- after they were denied marriage licenses by their local town clerks. The clerks acted on the advice of the state attorney general, who relied on a 1975 opinion by a predecessor calling same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

The three couples filed suit in Chittenden County Superior Court, but a judge rejected their claims. The couples then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case 13 months ago.

The couples argued that their inability to get married denied them more than 300 benefits at the state level and more than 1,000 at the federal level.

The court acknowledged that the benefits included "access to a spouse's medical, life, and disability insurance, hospital visitation and other medical decision making privileges, spousal support, intestate succession, homestead protections, and many other statutory protections."

Hawaii once had been considered the most likely state to legalize same-sex unions.

In 1993, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that the state's failure to recognize gay marriages amounted to gender discrimination.

The ruling set off pre-emptive legislating around the nation. Lawmakers feared that gay couples would fly to Hawaii to get married and that the 49 other states would then have to recognize those marriages.

At least 30 states banned gay marriages, and Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of homosexual marriage and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere.

Earlier this month, Hawaii's Supreme Court slammed the door on gay marriages in that state. The high court said the issue was resolved by a 1998 amendment to the state constitution against gay marriages.

Vermont was the only other state whose top court was considering the issue, and Monday's ruling had been anxiously awaited by both sides in the highly charged debate over same sex marriages.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.