Special Note: If you are attempting to reach me by email in the next week or so on any topic, please write "your constituent" in the subject line. Legislators are being flooded by hundreds of emails per day from out-of-state auto-messages on the civil marriage bill, and although I try to be careful, I may well miss a local message while deleting the ones from California,Arizona...and even in at least one case, the Netherlands! If I did not reply to you, it was not intentional - please write again.

Committee Work

We took testimony last week on the federal stimulus money and how it could help Vermont. Much of the funds are very carefully structured so that they cannot fund existing programs (even if we are being forced to cut them), but rather, to build for economic recovery.

This does include areas such as workforce training, and we are trying to maximize use of everything that can rebuild jobs without creating new parts of the budget that will put us in a much bigger hole when the federal money expires in two years.

We are trying to avoid cuts that will worsen the recession, such as the governor's proposed massive state layoffs. This also includes cuts that will actually increase costs. As one example, cuts to home health care will drive much higher costs through forced use of nursing homes.

This inevitably raises the issue of some portion of the budget gap being addressed by tax increases, which spread the impact of the recession among more of us, yet also risks a further negative impact on the economy.

The first tax proposal will come early in the week, when we review the transportation budget. It proposes a five cent gas tax increase rather than the governor's proposal to increase motor vehicle fees yet again. My current inclination - still dependent on floor testimony - is to support this particular tax.

Other Floor Action

Also scheduled later in the week for action by the full House are the general fund budget for the coming year, and the civil marriage bill (see discussion, below.)

Last week, the biggest debate was over a bill that would require four payments by Vermont Yankee to ensure full funding for decommissioning. On the surface, this looks like a no-brainer. Vermont Yankee - like many of us with retirement funds - invested its decommissioning funds in the market to help build it, and its value took a big hit this year, leaving a significant shortfall.

It's more complicated, however. We will be making a decision no later than next year on whether to support extending its license for another 20 years. We have received the report of our independent consultants, which, in short form, says, it can be safely relicensed if, if, if, if, and if...lots of very needed governing corrections and backup safety precautions.

The current decommissioning funding bill will only take effect if we do not agree with relicensing - and would take effect after that decision, on the last day of December, 2010.

No one in favor of the bill would answer my one question: why are we passing this bill now, if it will become moot if we make one decision, and is only needed if we decide the other way, and that decision must be made before this bill would take effect?

What it unnecessarily (prematurely) places at risk is the word of the state of Vermont. We signed an agreement that former Governor Howard Dean had made that required a below-market rate for power from Vermont Yankee, diverting funds from decommissioning (it appeared at the time the fund would be adequate) and also requiring contributions (which have been made) to the state's clean energy fund.

That agreement will come to an end at the end of current licensure in 2012.

If recommissioned, do we need to ensure the money will be there to decommission in 2032? Absolutely.

Either way, ratepayers will bear the cost - that's the nature of all business - but is it much better being paid over time with higher energy rates and lower corporate profits, than by a massive lump sum that falls on the state if Vermont Yankee cuts and runs in 2032.

However, when we don't know the outcome yet for the decision - which will come with intense review for the best interest of Vermonters - it makes absolutely no sense to pass an "if" bill.

I voted no (the bill did pass and now is in the Senate.) If we do not support relicensing by our deadline of next spring, I will vote yes for any similar bill.

The Civil Marriage Bill

(This discussion is a repeat from my constituent email from last week, for the sake of those who may have missed it, and because the Northfield News was out of space to run it on its regular schedule last week. I wanted to share my perspective before the last moment, but that was deferred based upon the needs the News.)

The civil marriage bill is currently scheduled to be on the House floor this Thursday and Friday.

I have considered and prayed over this issue for some time now. As a person of faith, my spiritually is part of who I am, and seeking guidance from God is a part of exercising my judgement in the best interests of the public good.

I appreciate and listen to insights from constituents, but we are a state that has chosen against ballot initiatives to make decisions. I am accountable for my decisions and for being consistent with the values I make public, rather than basing votes on a phone call or email tally of voter wishes. That accountability comes in the 2010 elections.

I have received thoughtful and deeply felt opinions from both sides.

I place a strong value on our fundamental civil rights. Freedom of religion is a fundamental civil right. Equal treatment by the government is a fundamental civil right.

I remember as a little girl in the second grade being taught by my parents that I was not to say the last phrase of the "Our Father" as it was recited in school. Those were not the correct words, and it would be wrong to say the words of the prayer in a way that God had not intended.

It is out of protection of our right to our own tenets of faith that we ban a state-adopted religion. We may go overboard sometimes in drawing that line, but it is a line I firmly believe is essential to the freedom to practice our own faith.

The significance of marriage is based upon many long-standing cultural, moral and religious values embedded in the commitment between two persons, male and female, whose love bond creates the continuation of the cycle of life itself.

Does civil marriage mean the same thing? In our pluralistic society, does marriage even have that same meaning in every religious denomination? The answer is no, to both.

Civil marriage is a social contract in which the state offers specific benefits in exchange for stability in long-term relationships, monogamy, and an environment for children to grow up in health and safety - all benefits to society as a whole.

If we offer a government benefit, it must be offered without difference or discrimination to any persons who meet the criteria for the benefit. Call it civil union, call it civil marriage; it is the same, and it is no intrusion into the sacred worlds of private faith just because a word - marriage - is used in common.

Obviously, only a man and a woman can have a sexual relationship that creates a new human life. However, persons whose sexuality differs from the norm and draws them to persons of the same sex should not be denied the benefits society offers to other couples when willing to enter into the same commitment.

Those who believe that children may be injured if they grow up in a family without both a mother and father figure are ignoring the fact that we abandoned that belief as a social priority when we made divorce easy.

We also recognized that either single parenthood or same sex parenthood were safe and healthy for children when we legally approved adoptions in those circumstances.

I disagree with part of the bill as currently drafted, because I think it perpetuates a core problem with the way we fail to distinguish between the civil and the religious meanings of marriage. I expect to propose amendments to protect the sanctity of marriage within the context of religious freedom.

Despite our commitment to separation of church and state, we have intertwined two different purposes into one word, and often, into one ceremony, through the legal process of how a civil marriage can be solemnized.

That makes them hard to see distinctly, and gives great sensitivity to use of the word, "marriage."

Religious marriage - that which provides moral approval of a union as defined within a specific theology - is a separate status that belongs in the independent realm of the faith beliefs of the members of a religion.

Within some religions, a civil marriage is morally irrelevant to the existence of a valid marriage. Only what is solemnized by a representative of that religious faith is a marriage.

However, gaining the legal benefits of civil marriage should be equally dependent upon only a civil authority. Religious leaders should not be involved as official representatives of the state by statute in solemnizing civil marriage for the purpose of state recognition, any more than a church would be expected to accept a civil marriage as qualified for its standards for a marriage. Churches should not be blurring their role by acting on behalf of the state.

We need to keep these meanings distinct, even when the word is the same. We can only reinforce that distinction if the authority to solemnize civil marriage is limited to those acting on behalf of the state. That protects our freedom to choose our own religious practices.

On a case-by-case basis, through a change in law made last year, any couple who desires a combined civil marriage with a marriage within their church may still do so, because any person (clergy or your best friend) may obtain permission from the state to solemnize a specific single marriage.

I think the sanctity of marriage, which is expressed based upon moral and religious standards of individual faith communities, is best protected for those communities by keeping the purposes of civil marriage separate and distinct.

Let us give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.

Please let me know your thoughts as well, on these and any other topics. You can always email at counterp@tds.net or leave a phone message at 485- 6431. This and past updates are also now accessible on my blog, http://annedonahue.blogspot.c om.