As the debate over same-sex marriage rages in Massachusetts, gay and lesbian couples have to look no further than their neighbors to the north to learn the benefits, both real and intrinsic, of having their relationships legally recognized.

On Oct. 16, four Vermont couples appeared before that state's Civil Unions Review Commission to describe how their lives have changed since they took advantage of the law, which went into effect July 1, 2000. They all subsequently related their testimony in interviews with Bay Windows.

The Vermont civil-unions law, also known as Act 91, established the commission to monitor how well the law is working and recommend whether it should be expanded or modified, according to Stephen Reynes, its chair. The all-volunteer body, comprising seven members, two appointed by each of the two houses of the state Legislature, two by the governor and one by the chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court, is charged with filing two annual reports. The first, containing statistics and reports from state government agencies, was filed with the Legislature last Jan. 15. The second, due Jan. 15, 2002, will include its recommendations. The commission has a limited life and goes out of business April 30, 2002.

``We, at our next meeting Nov. 13, will have a work session to go through the various things we've been asked to report on, make recommendations and ready a draft report for January 2002," Reynes, an attorney in private practice in Montpelier, the state capital, and a former Democratic member of both the Vermont House and Senate, said in an interview. ``In the meantime, we've had a series of meetings and heard from various people and agencies."

Besides couples, the Oct. 16 agenda included testimony by officials of the state Department of Prevention, Assistance, Transition and Health Access, and Family Court Operations, as well as by House Judiciary Committee Chair Margaret Flory, R-Pittsford, chief sponsor of H502, which would scrap the civil-unions law and replace it with a broader one that would include so-called ``reciprocal beneficiaries" provisions to cover siblings and others living together. The current law protects those people somewhat, but according to Reynes does not go as far as H502.

``The most interesting thing about this is that no one in the state of Vermont has signed up to do that, at least as of the end of September," Reynes observed. ``So a question that I asked [Representative] Flory was, 'Is there a need or desire in Vermont recognizing that no one has signed up for a version of that under the present law?' She said she thinks that people equate the existing law as being part of the gay law. And she thought that some people were just afraid to come forward."

In an interview, Flory said: ``It's long been my belief since we started the whole process after the Baker_ decision [the Vermont Supreme Court ruling that ordered the Legislature to grant legal relationships to gay and lesbian couples] that if you assume that the common benefits clause is to give equal benefits to people, then once you take procreation out of the equation, there is no logical way to do it other than to grant benefits to any two people who share in the caring of one another.

``I think the whole process missed a golden opportunity to reexamine what constitutes a family. And I think a family is constituted by heterosexuals [and] homosexual couples and I think it's also constituted by the two brothers who live together all their lives to care for one another, to relieve society's burden for having to that. We live in a different world now and I just objectÖto having the state extending benefits based on anyone's sexual orientation or sexual activity. It is none of the state's business."

All four couples that testified before the commission described the practical benefits of legal recognition, such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights, lower insurance rates, and other protections.

Beth Novotny, an attorney with the Vermont Department of Public Safety, and Miriam Street, assistant director of the Vermont City Marathon, joined in a civil union on July 5, 2000, the anniversary of their 1997 commitment ceremony. They had built a house in a rural town over a period of two years that was completed this October. ``We titled the property in both our names, but because of our civil union, we are considered under the eyes of law as one entity," Novotny explained. ``If for some reason Miriam were sued and if we were just joint tenants, at least half the asset would be available to creditors. Most married couples don't think about this. They don't spend a lot of time contemplating the tangible financial benefits of marriage."

Novotny said the couple also was pleasantly surprised when they contacted their Allstate Insurance agent to obtain an auto-home umbrella policy: ``When we talked to him in October, the agent asked whether we had a civil-union ceremony. He said that under the law Allstate didn't have to offer these benefits until January of this year, but they were voluntarily offering them before they had to. He said, 'So this would mean that we'll reduce your rates and refund you retroactively to the date of your ceremony.' I wasn't aware that there was such a benefit."

Among the plaintiffs in the Baker case, Lois Farnham and Holly Puterbaugh of South Burlington have been together 29 years (they were interviewed on their anniversary Oct. 20). Farnham is a school nurse supervisor in Essex Junction. Puterbaugh teaches math at the University of Vermont. ``We [already owned] our property jointly," Farnham reported. ``I was covered under Holly's health-care benefits. We had filled out the paperwork so we could sign for each other in the hospital. We don't have to do that anymore. We refinanced our mortgage and there is a little box to check for civil union on the application."

Tom Robinson and Brian Moore live in Colchester, a suburb of Burlington. Robinson works in the admissions office at the University Of Vermont. Moore is a graphics designer.

``I have Crohn's, an inflammatory bowel disease [that's] a chronic hereditary illness," Moore explained. ``I get blockages every now and then. At this time last year I was in the hospital for three days. It was nice to know that having a civil union, there weren't going to any issues. When you're sick it's the last thing you want to think about - legal issues with a relationship. Before civil unions, there wasn't a visitation rights law, but the doctors understood our relationship and didn't make an issue of it. We're both from Massachusetts, so when we travel there to visit family it makes us nervous sometimes. We do carry [the civil-union certificate] with us and while it is not a legal document in other states, it might carry some weight."

Sam and Craig Abel-Palmer of Shelburne, a Burlington suburb, have two adopted sons, Joey, 5, and Jacob, 2. Sam is an investigator with the state Human Rights Commission and Craig is a bookkeeper at the University of Vermont. They will have been together 10 years next summer, had a commitment ceremony in 1994 and joined in a civil union Aug.15, 2000.

``I think first of all we were very concerned about the legal protection around our children, all the things you don't want to think about in the future," Sam explained. The joint adoptions were not a problem because Vermont already had a law allowing them. ``We've made our wills, but things happen to wills. This codifies those protections. The other main point [I made] was that Joey is going to go into kindergarten and there's a cultural thing [associated with that]. Even if people don't say anything to you, whether it's other parents or kids or teachers, administrators, service providers, they notice. We're going into the very public arena of town having a very legal recognition of our relationship."

In his testimony, Sam pointed out that there are still some benefits couples joined in civil unions don't accrue: ``We still don't get marriage benefits from the federal government; for example, social security benefits. If we were retired and one passed, we would have no claim. I focused on some of those. Another thing I brought up: Soon after our commitment ceremony, my sister-in-law warned that while we can [write] wills to make sure how we want our property to be divided up, next of kin would still have a say over where Sam's remains were buried. I can now make that decision should he pass away before me.

``That doesn't mean that our families are hostile in any way, neither Sam's nor mine. Although at times, I just wonder how Sam's sisters would treat me if [it were] not for Sam. At this point I think they treat me with respect and as part of the family, but they have made comments that I would have gotten more upset about if I didn't have a civil union."

Craig Abel-Palmer was among those who talked about other, more intrinsic benefits: ``Previously a gay couple could be legally related to their children, but not to each other. What civil unions have done is complete the triangle. ÖIt just firms up the family relationship."

Novotny and others noted that civil unions legitimize relationships: ``There's some honor afforded to people; this is your wife as opposed to your girlfriend. If you say, 'This is my spouse,' you're treated differently. There is that subtle change that occurs in the workplace, at a Christmas party for example."

Farnham agreed: ``It was interesting to me because each of the couples who were going to speak had very tangible things that have happened that have been of help to them and it felt like the commission almost was saying, 'We know about the tangible stuff. Tell us about the intangible. Can you tell us how it made you feel? Did it change your life in any other way?' I've had the same job for 30 years. You can tell I don't like change. I've worked with these people for a long time. But after the [civil-union] service, something changed. If you ask me what it was, I can't really describe it."

``We did it for the traditional reason people get married: love," Farnham added. ``And because very simply I love Holly enough that out of respect for her and feelings I have for her, I wanted to offer her as much as I possibly could because I don't want to spend a day without her."

``One of the biggest things since the change to civil unions is reaction from our families, particularly Tom's, and how they perceive us as a family," Moore observed. ``The legal document has really helped his family understand what's going on. His nieces and nephews now call me uncle. There's a level of understanding there that makes us feel more like a family. I think things like that add a lot of stability to gay relationships and add stability to our family. That's real important."

Civil unions have not worked out so well for all couples. According to The Associated Press, Family Court Administrator Sally Fox told the commission that nine couples have filed for dissolutions since July 1, 2000.

Care to comment on this article? We'd love to hear from you! Send a letter to the editor to letters@baywindows.com.