Last week (the week of March 30), the Vermont legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill. On Monday, April 6, Vermont's GOP Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the bill. Today, a number of Vermont house members who had not voted for the bill changed their minds and voted for the bill. The bill passed with 100 votes for and 49 votes against. The margin of victory made the bill veto-proof.

How is this different from California? Remember, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal. But California has a citizen referendum system by which voters can amend the state constitution by majority vote. In Vermont, the state constitution also can be amended, but it's a bit more complex. Here's what Section 72 of the Vermont Constitution says:

§ 72. Amending constitution

At the biennial session of the General Assembly of this State which convenes in A.D. 1975, and at the biennial session convening every fourth year thereafter, the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may propose amendments to this Constitution, with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives with the amendment as proposed by the Senate. A proposed amendment so adopted by the Senate and concurred in by the House of Representatives shall be referred to the next biennial session of the General Assembly; and if at that last session a majority of the members of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives concur in the proposed amendment, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit the proposal directly to the voters of the state. Any proposed amendment submitted to the voters of the state in accordance with this section which is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon shall become part of the Constitution of this State.

Prior to the submission of a proposed amendment to a vote in accordance with this section, public notice of the proposed amendment shall be given by proclamation of the Governor.

The General Assembly shall provide for the manner of voting on amendments proposed under this section, and shall enact legislation to carry the provisions of this section into effect.

So amending the Vermont Constitution is a three-step procedure:

1. The Senate must pass an amendment by a 2/3 vote and the House must concur by a majority.
2. At the next session of the legislature, the proposed amendment must be approved by a majority of the Senate and the House.
3. Then the voters must approve the amendment by a majority.

With both the Senate and the House voting by 2/3 to allow gay marriage, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the Senate would later vote against gay marriage by a 2/3 vote and the majority of the House and the citizens agree to ban gay marriage.

Tags: Vermont, marriage

The trial court did not err when it declared both the marriage and the divorce of Andrew and Jennifer void. There was no dispute that Andrew "was born a female." Same-sex marriages in Texas are void. "A Texas court has no more power to issue a divorce decree for a same-sex marriage than it does to administer the estate of a living person." Mireles v. Mireles, No. 01-08-00499-CV (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 2, 2009).

Tags: marriage, divorce, Texas

No right to see the adopted child after breakup.

Lacey M. Smith and Charlene M. Gordon became involved in a romantic relationship. Gordon moved into Smith’s house and lived there for over nine years. Gordon and Smith did not have a commitment ceremony, but their friends and family considered them a long-term committed couple. They were beneficiaries of each others' life insurance policies. They opened a joint banking account.

After five years, Gordon and Smith wanted to have a child. Artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization didn't work. So they sought a child from Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan would allow only one of the women to adopt the child. Smith adopted it.

Ultimately, Gordon and Smith broke up. Gordon moved out of Smith's house. After a while, Smith would not let Gordon see the child any more.

The trial court found that although Gordon was not a legal parent, she was a de facto parent. The trial court ordered joint custody of the child. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed. It held that in the absence of child neglect, only a parent may petition for and be awarded custody of a child.

Tags: custody, Delaware