That's where I'm struggling. That part of the committee's decision was shaped in large part by political reality. What is achievable in this General Assembly and this body politic this year is a broad civil rights bill and, speaking for myself, that does not cross the threshold of marriage. Some people may be tempted to equate political reality with political cowardice in this case. But that would be a disservice to the committee.
Some members see a real danger in pushing too hard, too fast.
The risk for supporters of same-sex marriage is that a marriage law passed this year could be overturned in the future by amending the Vermont Constitution and defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. He said he wanted the committee to at least declare that same-sex marriage was the right thing to do even if the full House and Senate later compromised on domestic partnerships. Nevertheless, he said he understood the apprehensions of the other members of the committee even if he didn't share their view. For one thing, Hingtgen said, Vermont's Constitution is much harder to amend than Hawaii's or Alaska's. The amendment process can be started only every four years.