How did gay marriage become legal? Civil unions in this state paved the way 25 years ago.
'People take for granted that same-sex couples can get married nowadays,' Bill Lippert, 75, one of Vermont's first openly gay lawmakers, told the Burlington Free Press, which is a part of the USA TODAY Network. 'You can reference your husband or wife casually now in conversation. But if you weren't around 25 years ago, there isn't always an appreciation for how hard we had to fight."
April 26 marked the 25th anniversary of civil unions – marriage for same-sex couples in all but name – becoming state law. Although civil unions were deeply controversial even among Vermonters at the time, they served as the first pivotal step toward full marriage equality, Lippert said.
In 2000, Vermont became the first place in the world to grant marriage-equivalent legal rights to same-sex couples. Domestic partnerships existed in some places, but those unions 'usually only granted a few legal rights,' Lippert said.
'The eyes of the whole country and world were focused on what Vermont was doing in 2000,' said Lippert, who helped craft the civil unions bill while serving on the house judiciary committee.
Three years later Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage, followed by Connecticut and Iowa in 2008. Vermont followed suit in 2009. Several more states legalized same-sex marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court finally made it nationwide law in 2015 through the Obergefell v. Hodges case.
'One can see the direct connection between what Vermont did in 2000 with civil unions to what followed in Massachusetts and eventually with Obergefell in 2015,' Lippert said.
Prior to the creation of civil unions, gay and lesbian couples lacked 'a thousand more rights' than married straight couples, Lippert said, no matter how long they had been together.
For instance, if one partner in a same-sex relationship was in hospital, the other partner did not automatically have the power of attorney.
'That was one of the most painful ones,' Lippert said.
Lippert recalled one particularly egregious case that happened to a lesbian couple with a child. When the partner who had given birth to the child died in a car crash, her parents fought for custody even though the two women had been raising the kid together.
'The list goes on and on,' Lippert said.
Although Vermont eventually established 'second parent adoption' in 1993, there still wasn't a 'legal connection between partners,' Lippert noted.
'That side of the triangle was missing,' he said.
In the late '90s, three lawyers and three same-sex couples decided it was time to test Vermont's marriage laws.
In 1998, three Vermont same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Chittenden County. When their marriages were denied, they filed a lawsuit that became known as Baker v. Vermont, or informally "the Baker Case," after the last name of one of the plaintiffs. A Vermont Superior Court judge ruled to dismiss the case, so the plaintiffs made an appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court.
What the Vermont Supreme Court did next shocked everyone. Instead of either legalizing gay marriage or striking down the case, the justices ruled in 1999 that same-sex couples should be afforded all the same legal rights as heterosexual couples but left it up to the Vermont legislature whether to grant gay couples the ability to marry or form an equivalent union.
'Personally, I was shocked because I had been assured by the attorneys fighting for gay marriage that we would never have to vote on it in the legislature,' Lippert said. 'Many of my colleagues were, frankly, beyond anxious – terrified – because they never wanted to deal with the issue because it was so controversial.'
At the time, some states were changing their constitutions to outlaw gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act also went into effect two years prior. In Vermont specifically, only 20% of residents supported gay marriage.
Gay marriage 'was not a popular proposal,' Lippert recalled. 'It was hotly condemned and fought against by major religious groups as an affront to their religious sacraments.' One of their main fears was that churches would be forced to marry gay couples.
The Vermont legislature was already in mid-session when the court dropped the issue of gay marriage in their laps. The House judicial committee, where Lippert served as vice chair, was tasked with writing the bill that would grant gay couples the right to marry or to form an equivalent union.
After listening to weeks of testimony from supporters and opponents of gay marriage, the committee voted to create a 'parallel legal structure,' which they named civil unions, Lippert said.
'It was very disappointing for the attorneys and advocates, but it was clear that we did not have the votes to create full marriage for same-sex couples,' said Lippert, who was among the three committee members to vote for gay marriage.
Some gay marriage advocates at the time found the idea of civil unions insulting and akin to the concept of 'Separate but equal.'
Some activists said civil unions were like 'having to sit on the back of the bus' and refused to support the bill, Lippert said. 'Others said, 'At least we're on the bus.''
The lawsuit plaintiffs and their attorneys decided 'it was better to pass something achievable than pass something that would fail and then get nothing,' Lippert said.
Elsewhere in the country: Naples Pride pleased with judge's ruling on drag show, 'a really big win'
On the day House reps were scheduled to vote, Lippert and his committee members weren't sure if they had enough support to pass civil unions. Some representatives wouldn't share their plans, while others kept saying they 'needed more information' before they could decide which way to vote.
For some representatives, a "yes" vote guaranteed they would lose their seats in either the primary or general elections later that year.
'Until the roll call, none of us knew we were going to win,' said Lippert. 'It would have taken a few votes to switch and we would have lost.'
After 12 hours of debate and testimony that day, the Vermont house voted 76-69 to pass the civil unions bill.
Lippert primarily attributed the win to 'courageous' gay Vermonters, loved ones and other advocates who shared personal stories throughout the bill process. Some gay people even came out publicly for the first time to throw their support behind the bill.
Lippert also thinks the 'hateful phone calls and letters' legislators received made them realize why civil unions were necessary.
'They saw why we needed this,' Lippert said. 'That if this is the level of prejudice and hatefulness that comes at me, what must it be like for gay people? The hate backfired.'
Once civil unions passed the house, it was much smoother sailing for gay advocates. The senate, which had a higher percentage of Democrats than the house, passed civil unions 19-11.
Gov. Howard Dean, who already voiced his approval of civil unions, signed the bill into law soon after – albeit behind closed doors and without fanfare.
'He said publicly that marriage for same-sex couples made him uncomfortable' but that he could back civil unions, Lippert remembered. Even still, Dean's support was 'crucial.'
'If he hadn't been willing to say he would sign the bill, I don't think we would have passed it,' Lippert said. 'People wouldn't have risked voting for it.'
'Art is a form of protest': How Phoenix LGBTQ+ artists use poetry as an act of resistance
Later that year, 17 legislators who voted for civil unions in April 2000 lost their seats to opponents who promised to help repeal the institution. Dean, who had to wear a bulletproof vest during his gubernatorial campaign, also faced an ardent anti-civil unions challenger.
'It's hard to explain the level of controversy and some of the hatefulness directed at the governor and lawmakers,' Lippert said.
The following session, the now more conservative House managed to repeal civil unions by one vote, but the effort died in the Senate.
Between 2000 and 2009, thousands of gay couples from other states and nations traveled to Vermont to enter civil unions. They wanted legal recognition of their relationship somewhere even if their home state or country wouldn't respect it, Lippert said.
'At the time, I would have been happy to have settled the case in court,' Lippert said. 'But looking back, I think it would have garnered greater backlash if the court had granted gay marriage or an equivalent institution directly.'
That's what happened in Hawaii. In 1996, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage to same-sex couples. An enormous public backlash ensued, and by 1998, Hawaiians had changed their state constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
Amending Vermont's constitution wouldn't have been as easy – it takes multiple years versus only one in Hawaii – but there definitely were some lawmakers who wanted to, Lippert said. Such an amendment never got off the ground, however.
'My view is civil unions was a historic step for civil marriage for same-sex couples,' Lippert said. 'Saying that full marriage equality was important does not take away from civil unions moving us to marriage equality in a profound way.'
Lippert and his spouse eventually entered a civil union themselves. They then got married once Vermont legalized what Lippert now calls 'full marriage equality.'
This article originally appeared on Burlington Free Press: Vermont civil unions paved way for US gay marriage equality
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
Trump's golf trip to Scotland reopens old wounds for some of his neighbors
BALMEDIE, Scotland − Long before talk of hush-money payments, election subversion or mishandling classified documents, before his executive orders were the subject of U.S. Supreme Court challenges, before he was the 45th and then the 47th president: on a wild and windswept stretch of beach in northeast Scotland, Donald Trump the businessman was accused of being a bad neighbor. "This place will never, ever belong to Trump," Michael Forbes, 73, a retired quarry worker and salmon fisherman, said this week as he took a break from fixing a roof on his farm near Aberdeen. The land he owns is surrounded, though disguised in places by trees and hedges, by a golf resort owned by Trump's family business in Scotland, Trump International Scotland. For nearly 20 years, Forbes and several other families who live in Balmedie have resisted what they describe as bullying efforts by Trump to buy their land. (He has denied the allegations.) They and others also say he's failed to deliver on his promises to bring thousands of jobs to the area. Those old wounds are being reopened as Trump returns to Scotland for a four-day visit beginning July 25. It's the country where his mother was born. He appears to have great affection for it. Trump is visiting his golf resorts at Turnberry, on the west coast about 50 miles from Glasgow, and at Balmedie, where Forbes' 23 acres of jumbled, tractor-strewn land, which he shares with roaming chickens and three Highland cows, abut Trump's glossy and manicured golf resort. On July 28, Trump will briefly meet in Balmedie with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to "refine" a recent U.S.-U.K. trade deal, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Golf, a little diplomacy: Trump heads to Scotland In Scotland, where estimates from the National Library of Scotland suggest that as many as 34 out of the 45 American presidents have Scottish ancestry, opinions hew toward the he's-ill-suited-for-the-job, according to surveys. "Trump? He just doesn't know how to treat people," said Forbes, who refuses to sell. What Trump's teed up in Scotland Part of the Balmedie community's grievances relate to Trump's failure to deliver on his promises. According to planning documents, public accounts and his own statements, Trump promised, beginning in 2006, to inject $1.5 billion into his golf project six miles north of Aberdeen. He has spent about $120 million. Approval for the development, he vowed, came with more than 1,000 permanent jobs and 5,000 construction gigs attached. Instead, there were 84, meaning fewer than the 100 jobs that already existed when the land he bought was a shooting range. Instead of a 450-room luxury hotel and hundreds of homes that Trump pledged to build for the broader community, there is a 19-room boutique hotel and a small clubhouse with a restaurant and shop that sells Trump-branded whisky, leather hip flasks and golf paraphernalia. Financial filings show that his course on the Menie Estate in Balmedie lost $1.9 million in 2023 − its 11th consecutive financial loss since he acquired the 1,400-acre grounds in 2006. Residents who live and work near the course say that most days, even in the height of summer, the fairway appears to be less than half full. Representatives for Trump International say the plan all along has been to gradually phase in the development at Balmedie and that it is not realistic or fair to expect everything to be built overnight. There's also support for Trump from some residents who live nearby, and in the wider Aberdeen business community. One Balmedie resident who lives in the shadow of Trump's course said that before Trump the area was nothing but featureless sand dunes and that his development, carved between those dunes, made the entire landscape look more attractive. Fergus Mutch, a policy advisor for the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, said Trump's golf resort has become a "key bit of the tourism offer" that attracts "significant spenders" to a region gripped by economic turmoil, steep job cuts and a prolonged downturn in its North Sea oil and gas industry. Trump in Scotland: Liked or loathed? Still, recent surveys show that 70% of Scots hold an unfavorable opinion of Trump. Despite his familial ties and deepening investments in Scotland, Trump is more unpopular among Scots than with the British public overall, according to an Ipsos survey from March. It shows 57% of people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't view Trump positively. King Charles invites Trump: American president snags another UK state visit While in Balmedie this time, Trump will open a new 18-hole golf course on his property dedicated to his mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, who was a native of Lewis, in Scotland's Western Isles. He is likely to be met with a wave of protests around the resort, as well as the one in Turnberry. The Stop Trump Coalition, a group of campaigners who oppose most of Trump's domestic and foreign policies and the way he conducts his private and business affairs, is organizing a protest in Aberdeen and outside the U.S. consulate in Edinburgh. During Trump's initial visit to Scotland as president, in his first term, thousands of protesters sought to disrupt his visit, lining key routes and booing him. One protester even flew a powered paraglider into the restricted airspace over his Turnberry resort that bore a banner that read, "Trump: well below par #resist." 'Terrific guy': The Trump-Epstein party boy friendship lasted a decade, ended badly Trump's course in Turnberry has triggered less uproar than his Balmedie one because locals say that he's invested millions of dollars to restore the glamour of its 101-year-old hotel and three golf courses after he bought the site in 2014. Trump versus the families Three families still live directly on or adjacent to Trump's Balmedie golf resort. They say that long before the world had any clue about what type of president a billionaire New York real estate mogul and reality-TV star would become, they had a pretty good idea. Forbes is one of them. He said that shortly after Trump first tried to persuade him and his late wife to sell him their farm, workers he hired deliberately sabotaged an underground water pipe that left the Forbes – and his mother, then in her 90s, lived in her own nearby house – without clean drinking water for five years. Trump International declined to provide a fresh comment on those allegations, but a spokesperson previously told USA TODAY it "vigorously refutes" them. It said that when workers unintentionally disrupted a pipe that ran into an "antiquated" makeshift "well" jointly owned by the Forbeses on Trump's land, it was repaired immediately. Trump has previously called Forbes a "disgrace" who "lives like a pig." 'I don't have a big enough flagpole' David Milne, 61, another of Trump's seething Balmedie neighbors, lives in a converted coast guard station with views overlooking Trump's course and of the dunes and the North Sea beyond. In 2009, Trump offered him and his wife about $260,000 for his house and its one-fifth acre of land, Milne said. Trump was caught on camera saying he wanted to remove it because it was "ugly." Trump, he said, "threw in some jewelry," a golf club membership (Milne doesn't play), use of a spa (not yet built) and the right to buy, at cost, a house in a related development (not yet constructed). Milne valued the offer at about half the market rate. When Milne refused that offer, he said that landscapers working for Trump partially blocked the views from his house by planting a row of trees and sent Milne a $3,500 bill for a fence they'd built around his garden. Milne refused to pay. Over the years, Milne has pushed back. He flew a Mexican flag at his house for most of 2016, after Trump vowed to build a wall on the southern American border and make Mexico pay for it. Milne, a health and safety consultant in the energy industry, has hosted scores of journalists and TV crews at his home, where he has patiently explained the pros and cons − mostly cons, in his view, notwithstanding his own personal stake in the matter − of Trump's development for the local area. Milne said that because of his public feud with Trump, he's a little worried a freelance MAGA supporter could target him or his home. He has asked police to provide protection for him and his wife at his home while Trump is in the area. He also said he won't be flying any flags this time, apart from the Saltire, Scotland's national flag. "I don't have a big enough flagpole. I would need one from Mexico, Canada, Palestine. I would need Greenland, Denmark − you name it," he said, running through some of the places toward which Trump has adopted what critics view as aggressive and adversarial policies. Dunes of great natural importance Martin Ford was the local Aberdeen government official who originally oversaw Trump's planning application to build the Balmedie resort in 2006. He was part of a planning committee that rejected it over environmental concerns because the course would be built between sand dunes that were designated what the UK calls a Site of Special Scientific Interest due to the way they shift over time. The Scottish government swiftly overturned that ruling on the grounds that Trump's investment in the area would bring a much-needed economic boost. Neil Hobday, who was the project director for Trump's course in Balmedie, last year told the BBC he was "hoodwinked" by Trump over his claim that he would spend more than a billion dollars on it. Hobday said he felt "ashamed that I fell for it and Scotland fell for it. We all fell for it." The dunes lost their special status in 2020, according to Nature Scot, the agency that oversees such designations. It concluded that their special features had been "partially destroyed" by Trump's resort. Trump International disputes that finding, saying the issue became "highly politicized." For years, Trump also fought to block the installation of a wind farm off his resort's coast. He lost that fight. The first one was built in 2018. There are now 11 turbines. Ford has since retired but stands by his belief that allowing approval for the Trump resort was a mistake. "I feel cheated out of a very important natural habitat, which we said we would protect and we haven't," he said. "Trump came here and made a lot of promises that haven't materialized. In return, he was allowed to effectively destroy a nature site of great conservation value. It's not the proper behavior of a decent person." Forbes, the former quarry worker and fisherman, said he viewed Trump in similar terms. He said that Trump "will never ever get his hands on his farm." He said that wasn't just idle talk. He said he's put his land in a trust that specified that when he dies, it can't be sold for at least 125 years.


USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
What to know on Trump, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein files: The latest
The Justice Department talked to Jeffrey Epstein's ex-girlfriend, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, after weeks of bubbling outrage over a memo that appeared to close the Epstein case. Over two days, Justice Department officials questioned Jeffrey Epstein's ex-girlfriend, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, as the White House continues to battle calls for more transparency over what Epstein did and who else may have been involved. It's unclear what came out of the interview, but Maxwell's lawyer David Markus said his client answered all of the government's questions, which covered about 100 people. "She answered questions about everybody and she didn't hold anything back," Markus said, without specifying who was mentioned. The Justice Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on what came out of the interview. The talks follow more than two weeks of bubbling outrage from members of President Donald Trump's base over the department's announcement in early July that it won't release its files on Epstein. DOJ said a systematic review of the files didn't turn up any list of clients involved in Epstein's crimes. Even some congressional Republicans have clamored for the files' release or introduced legislation to try to force the Trump administration's hand. Republican leadership has so far blocked the legislation and White House officials continue to resist those calls. Still, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has suggested that Maxwell could reveal new details about Epstein's circle and crimes. Here is all the latest on the fallout: July 25: Maxwell lawyer signals desire for pardon Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of trafficking a minor to Epstein for sexual abuse, and for conspiring to entice and transport minors for illegal sex acts. She is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, and has an appeal pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Markus indicated July 25 that his client could ask for a pardon soon, following the two days she spent talking to Justice Department officials July 24-25. "We haven't spoken to the president or anybody about a pardon just yet," he said. "The president this morning said he had the power to do so. We hope he exercises that power in the right and just way." Trump has the power to pardon Maxwell fully as well as to commute her prison sentence. But to many, that might look more like reducing than enhancing accountability – especially if Maxwell offers little in return. In the morning on July 25, Trump said he hasn't thought about pardoning Maxwell, but also didn't rule it out. "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about," Trump said. "I certainly can't talk about pardons now." July 25: 16% of voters in poll approve of Trump administration on Epstein Only 16% of of voters who responded to a poll released July 25 by Emerson College Polling approved of the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files. Fifty-one percent disapproved, while 33% were neutral. The poll surveyed 1,400 U.S. voters from July 21-22. Its margin of error is ±2.5 points, according to the polling organization. July 23: Florida judge shields Epstein grand jury testimony In addition to approaching Maxwell, the Justice Department asked federal judges in Florida and New York to unseal transcripts of testimony before grand juries investigating Epstein and Maxwell. If judges allow for the transcripts' release, the department said it will first redact both victim-related information and personal identifying information from the transcripts. On July 23, federal Judge Judge Robin L. Rosenberg rejected the request in Florida, writing that she doesn't have the power to order the records' release because of a past ruling from an appeals court that presides over her trial court. Judges in New York haven't yet ruled on the administration's requests there. July 23: Reports emerge that AG Bondi told Trump in May he is named in Epstein files Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump in May that he was named multiple times in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, according to reports from the Wall Street Journal and CNN. A White House official did not dispute that Trump's name is mentioned in the Epstein files, telling USA TODAY that briefing binders Bondi prepared for MAGA influencers in February included the president's name. But the official rejected any suggestion that Trump engaged in wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. Being named doesn't mean the person did anything criminal. July 22: House Speaker Mike Johnson starts summer recess early to avoid Epstein House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, announced on July 22 he is shutting down the House for its summer recess early to avoid a vote on releasing the Epstein files. Johnson said there was "no daylight" between the Trump administration and the House, and the White House needed "space" to address the issue. Members of Congress were scheduled to leave Washington for several weeks starting July 24, but Johnson said he would cut the schedule short and end with votes on July 23. Johnson took that step after Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, and Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colorado, co-sponsored legislation calling for the release of the government's Epstein records. July 22: New footage shows Epstein at Trump wedding Archived video footage and photos revealed by CNN July 22 showed Jeffrey Epstein attended Trump's wedding to Marla Maples at the Plaza Hotel in 1993. Maples is the second of Trump's three wives. The couple divorced in 1999. "You've got to be kidding me," Trump told CNN when asked about the wedding photos on a phone call. He called the outlet "fake news" and hung up. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said the images were "out-of-context frame grabs of innocuous videos and pictures of widely attended events to disgustingly infer something nefarious." July 22: House committee agrees to seek Maxwell testimony The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee agreed on July 22 to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell to testify. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tennessee, said he pressed for the subpoena in order to learn more about Epstein's criminal conduct. 'This deposition will help the American people understand how Jeffrey Epstein was able to carry out his evil actions for so long without being brought to justice,' Burchett said. July 18: Trump sues Wall Street Journal over lewd Epstein birthday letter On July 17, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump sent Epstein a lewd birthday letter for his 50th birthday, which took place in early 2003. Trump called the letter a "FAKE" on social media July 17 and sued the newspaper's publisher for libel on July 18. The letter contains typewritten dialogue between "Donald" and "Jeffrey," and at a later point "Trump." In the dialogue, "Donald" says, "We have certain things in common, Jeffrey" and that, "Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?" The dialogue ends with "Trump" saying, "A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret." The dialogue is encased within a seemingly hand-drawn outline of a naked woman, the Journal reported. The letter includes a pair of arcs denoting the woman's breasts, and a "Donald" squiggly signature mimicking pubic hair. USA TODAY could not verify the details or origin of the letter. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Bart Jansen, Melina Khan, Savannah Kuchar, Christopher Cann - USA TODAY


San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Leading Democrats and advocates for homeless people are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent. Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states. 'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads. Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl. The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go. Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness. His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on "creating distracting headlines and settling old scores." "But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter. Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping. Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order. He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said. 'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said. But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the U.S. abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns. 'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.' The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing. ___