MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) – Seven years after Vermont broke new ground by legally recognizing the relationships of gay and lesbian couples through civil unions, advocates are beginning to lobby for full marriage rights.

The civil union law confers on same-sex couples all of the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage, but it’s still not enough, members of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force said Wednesday.

“In 2000, Vermont decided to legally recognize same-sex couples,” said Stan Baker, the lead plaintiff in a 1997 lawsuit that led to adoption of civil unions. “Now it’s time to equally recognize same-sex couples.”

Bills are being introduced in both the House and Senate that would expand civil marriage to same-sex couples. Similar legislation was introduced in the House last year but never got a formal hearing.

Advocates held a news conference Wednesday on the cold, windswept steps of Montpelier City Hall to announce their new initiative. The setting was chosen, organizers said, because couples go to city and town halls to get their marriage licenses.

This year, there are 33 sponsors of the House bill and 10 in the Senate, but advocates don’t expect the law to change anytime soon. There’s a possibility that the issue could be the subject of a public hearing this session, but legislative leaders said they do not expect the bill to make it before the full House or full Senate.

They well remember the tumult that the civil union debate caused in 2000. After that, Democrats lost their majority in the House for four years. They’re not interested in igniting the divisive debate anew, potentially jeopardizing their leadership in the House and Senate, especially in a year when they don’t expect it would get past Republican Gov. Jim Douglas.

“I don’t see any likelihood, with the current political structure in Vermont, that a gay marriage bill is going to be enacted into law,” said Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham. “Since the bill isn’t likely to become law, we’re not going to be having hearings in the Senate.” There is a greater possibility of a hearing in the House.

Nonetheless, backers believe getting the subject back on the public agenda will be important in advancing it.

“We know there’s no better way to persuade our fellow Vermonters of the righteousness of our cause than to get to know us,” said Beth Robinson, a lawyer and a leader of the Freedom to Marry Task Force.

The Rev. Craig Bensen, a leading opponent of civil unions seven years ago, said another bitter debate would be waged if the marriage bill were to advance. The public would have no stomach for the debate, given how angry it became in 2000, he said.

“The general public mood (is) ‘Why mess with the issue? Why bring this up again?’” he said.

He questioned whether civil unions had been the law long enough for the state to measure the effectiveness and impact of the law. “It’s hard to argue that the civil union experiment has gone on long enough to give us valid information,” Bensen said.

Rep. Mark Larson, D-Burlington, the lead sponsor of the initiative in the House, said he understood the challenges of getting a bill through the Legislature but believed introducing the bill would stir up public debate.

“I think our focus right now is to start the discussion,” Larson said. “The first step is to get the conversation started. We will be talking to legislative leaders about what the next steps will be.”

Drafts of the House and Senate bills are fairly simple, four-page documents. The proposal would clarify that the state recognizes civil marriage. It would mandate that gender-specific terms such as spouse, bride, groom, widow and widower should be construed to be “gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law.”

Finally, it would allow members of the clergy to refuse to preside over a marriage if it would violate their religious beliefs.

Since Vermont enacted civil unions in 2000, Connecticut and New Jersey have followed suit. Same-sex couples in Massachusetts can marry.

Advocates said there were valid legal reasons to move from civil unions to full marriage. Civil unions are not universally recognized by the 50 states, as marriage is, they said. And the only way same-sex couples might gain federal recognition is through marriage, they said.