[streamline]

The VT Supreme Court didn't see it that way. They ruled that not having access to the coverage because a marriage license was required (and also not available) was the main sticking point.

[eastsider]

[A] marriage license was required (and also not available) ...

A marriage license was available to any couple that wanted one -- provided that the couple comprised two adults of opposite sex. As I stated before, I see that as a discrimination among sexual relationships, not among citizens.

If you have a link to the VT SC ruling you're referencing, I'd be interested in reading it.