A tale of two gay rights histories:

[Nicholas_J]

Howard Dean - Lt Governor of Vt. 1986:

Candidates respond to OITM survey


In early September, OITM sent out questionnaires to candidates for statewide office in Vermont on issues of particular concern to lesbians and gay men. These candidates were informed that the results would be published in our newspaper and that failure to respond would also be noted. What follows are the results of this survey.


Lieutenant Governor: Howard Dean would not support a civil rights bill "aimed specifically at any given group" but he would include lesbian/gay civil rights protection in a broader bill. He did support the HTLV-III anti-discrimination bill sponsored by Micque Glitmen last year. He would support state funding for education and services to people with AIDS and people in high-risk groups. He would support re-instituting the State Human Rights Commission. He was ambivalent about appointing a liaison simply because he wasn't sure if it was necessary because of numerous "friends and supporters" in the gay community.


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1986/11nov1986/


Senator John Kerry - 1985:

Kerry says his record over the years on a range of issues sets him apart from other candidates. In 1985, he authored the Senate version of the gay civil rights bill — a measure that, if passed, would have covered discrimination in employment, housing and credit. His average score on the Human Rights Campaign's congressional scorecard, begun in the 101st Congress, is 96 percent — with a perfect score for the last four congresses.

http://www.hrc.org/publications/hrcq/hrcq03sp/kerry.asp

A number of progressive articles indicate that while the case that resulted in the Civil Union act which started in 1996 and was not finally settled until December of 1999, Howard Denacremained mute about support for the rights of gays to that union, He would not take a stand on this critical case:

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867

So perhaps a look at Deans past record regarding the civil rights of gays bears closer scrutiny.

A year after John Kerry WROTE the a national bill that would ensure gays the same rights as other citizens, Dean was stating that he would not consider a special bill dealingt with discrimination against gays.

[Padraig18]

1. No, what he *said* was...

... he would not comment on a case pending before the Vt. courts--- period. Spin it however you want, but don't put words in the man's mouth that HE didn't SAY!

[Nicholas_J]

4. Its not spin

AS a matter of fact it is UNUSUAL for an executive to NOT state where he stands on a matter in the courts. It is the case in which a president most FREQUENTLY comes down and state where he stands on ANY issue that is before the Supremem Court, such as the current presidents statements about his position on Partial Birth Abortion, or Clintons many statements of his position on issued before the courts.

I is not spin, and it is usually an executives DUTY to state what side of a court issue he comes doen on'

This was sheer political cowardice on Deans part.

[Padraig18]

5. It *is* spin

Anyone but a Kerry supporter could see that. There are TONS of cases before OUR State SC now, and the Governor rarely speaks on ANY of them that do not involve him or his cabinet directly!

Where do you get the facts to back up your bald assertion that it is 'common'?

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

Dean didn't have to have a big ceremony when the civil unions legislation passed. He could have signed it quietly and played it politically safe. But Dean has always been up front about his burning passion for establishing full rights of citizenship for all Americans of every persuasion. It's his commitment to progressive issues like gay rights and environmentalism that draw me past all the fiery rhetoric to the heart of a warm and caring man.

[Padraig18]

3. Yep, almost as impressive as...

... John Kerry standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Sen. Dick Durbin (who was up for re-election at the time) in opposing the IWR. Brave man, is the good Senator...

[killbotfactory]

6. Dean's hatred of gays runs deep

Governor Dean Supports Gay Rights - 1992
Governor Howard Dean, in his State of the State Address before the Vermont Legislature on January 7th, included support for the full civil rights of lesbians and gays in his agenda for the current legislative session.

"I also ask this General Assembly to continue Vermont's strong tradition of civil rights by passing the gay rights bill so that no group of Vermonters suffers from bigotry and intolerance."

February 02, 1992

As Governor, Dean has historically sided with Vermont’s gay and lesbian community. He is credited with helping pass and ultimately signed into law legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also supported the extension of benefits to the domestic partners of Vermont State employees. In 1994, Dean appointed Bill Lippert, an openly gay man, to fill a vacant seat in the House of Representatives. As a result of Vermont’s civil union law, The Advocate, a national gay newsmagazine, dubbed him the "Dean of Unions."

December 12th, 2002

"What I need to get across to the gay community and our allies is that Dean, although a centrist Democrat, has put himself on the line out there on civil unions and the community as a whole," Lippert stressed. "He has steadfastly recognized civil unions as a civil rights issue. I absolutely support his re-election despite differences on other issues. This is not the time for gays and lesbians to turn our backs . He has earned our support over and over."

September, 2000

OITM: Immediately after the Supreme Court’s Baker ruling, you sided with domestic partnership legislation. How did you come to make this decision and what role do you think your position played in the ultimate outcome of the debate?

Dean: I knew that marriage was impossible and that the legislature would just kill themselves. They couldn’t do it; they’d fall into terrible disarray. I thought the court decision left civil union as a legal alternative, which would grant the rights and the benefits, as they required. I thought that in time Vermonters would come to accept that. In the end, I think my position gave cover to a lot of people in the legislature. It really helped legislators who were struggling with the issue.

OITM: When you finally announced your position, you said that gay marriage made you "uncomfortable like everyone else." Can you clarify what you meant by that and specifically what about gay marriage makes you uncomfortable?

Dean: The truth is that it is the politics that made me uncomfortable. (Personally) I’m sure that I have the same hang-ups that lots of people have on the issue. But it is a matter of equity. I remain convinced that of the 50 percent of people who are opposed to this, that half of those are fundamentally decent human beings and this is just a vast change for them that they’ve never considered before. I consider those people people who will ultimately accept the equality of gays and lesbians and stop marginalizing them. Those are the people that I have to speak to.

June, 2000

Is there any gay or lesbian voter who would not stand in line on Election Day to vote for Governor Dean? If I were eligible to vote in Vermont, I would literally crawl, swim, walk over hot coals (whatever I had to do) to cast my vote for him. I realize that I am the ultimate "flatlander" "a Texan" but also I have been a political activist in our movement for 29 years. I know this is true: we must, we absolutely must stand up for those who have stood for us. Howard Dean backed civil unions and signed the bill that gave ALL of us in the United States the most sweeping set of legal rights in our lifetime.

October, 2000

Some BLTG people in Vermont may feel that Anthony Pollina is more sympathetic and responsive to our community, but the political reality of the civil union legislation as being only a part of a national movement for our civil rights is that we need to stick by and vote for Howard Dean.

If we as a voting bloc are seen as having turned our backs on Governor Dean for his reelection bid, it would send a message to politicians from sea to shining sea: BLTG voters desert their allies without provocation. Furthermore, if Dean loses the election it would send a message to politicians of every ilk: Allying with the BLTG community by helping implement groundbreaking legislation is political suicide.

I’m voting for Howie because I respect a man who can see past his discomfort with us and support our struggle for full civil rights. (Think about that for one second: it’s a greater act of courage to champion the rights of a group you are uncomfortable with.) His infamous remark to the effect that: I’m as uncomfortable with homosexuality as anyone else or some such never bothered me at all. I considered it to be a remarkably candid statement coming from a politician. He doesn’t have to love me, he just has to understand that I deserve a seat at the table, and act to help me occupy my seat. (How many BLTG people do you know who can’t be bothered to work for their own rights?)

October, 2000

As I reported in the January edition of Out in the Mountains, seventeen GLBTQ youth met with Governor Howard Dean this past November. He expressed great support for gay/straight alliances and took a firm stand against homophobic harassment in schools. "At the meeting with Governor Dean," accounts Cindy Marcelle, a teenager from New Haven, "I stopped seeing him as a man on the 6:00 news. I started seeing him as a father, an ally; and most of all, as a friend." Since then, Dean has written a letter to school principals in support of GLBTQ youth and worked with Marc Hull, the Commissioner of Education.

June, 1998

OITM: Would President Dean have signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

Dean: No.

OITM: What is your position on the bill proposed by Nancy Sheltra (R-Derby) that would make same gender marriage in Vermont illegal?

Dean: I don't support that. I think we have to see what the courts say before we react preemptively. There is a very difficult issue here and that is that the institution of marriage, from a non religious point of view, provides a huge number of civil rights that are not available to people who are not married. That issue has to be addressed. If it isn't going to be addressed in terms of marriage, it has to be addressed a different way. But I don't think it is appropriate for the legislature to get involved until we know what the ground rules are.

May, 1998

Associated Press, 05/08/98 01:03

EAST MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - It's not necessary to approve of other
peoples' sexuality, but it's vital to treat others with tolerance and
civility, Gov. Howard Dean told students at U-32 high school.

Adolescence is especially difficult for gays and lesbians because that
is when everyone is discovering their own sexuality, and also when
people want the most to fit in with their peers, Dean told about 580
students in grades 9-12 on Thursday.

``Sexual identity is a very difficult issue; it's an issue that lots
of kids, whether they are gay and lesbian or whether they are
straight, struggle with, particularly through adolescence,
particularly in high school,'' Dean said. ``The fact that someone is
different, has a different sexual orientation, and is in a very
significant minority makes those folks have to stand up to enormous
amounts of pressure.''

Dean spoke at the high school at the request of Principal Inga Duktig,
who said the governor's talk was to her ``a golden opportunity for a
government official to deliver an important message to our student
body about civil rights.''

In her two years at U-32, Duktig said, she's known of incidents where
gay students were harassed. The school has a policy prohibiting
harassment on the basis of disability, marital status, national
origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.

``Schools are just microcosms of society,'' she said. ``Oftentimes out
of ignorance, individuals act in ways that are offensive, and often
they do it unknowingly...without even understanding that some of that
may violate civil rights.''

Dean told the students that when he was their age, racial epithets
that would not be tolerated now were used regularly in conversation.

These days in high school, he said, sexual epithets ``are tossed off
as if nothing was said, as if it's no big deal. That hurts.''

Dean asked students to think carefully about how their words might
hurt a listener. He asked them to be willing to learn tolerance.

``The reason people exhibit intolerance is because they're afraid.
They're afraid of what's inside themselves,'' Dean said. ``What I'm
here to do is to bring that out in the open, to talk about it... to
let you know that people who have gone before you have struggled with
these type of issues, that you are not alone.''

And he asked the students to acknowledge the courage of people who do
take a stand on issues like sexual orientation.

``Their road in life is not easy,'' he said.

After Dean spoke, students and teachers stepped to microphones to ask
Dean his views on issues including gay marriage and affirmative
action.

``That's one that I haven't figured out yet,'' Dean said about gay
marriage. ``That's a very difficult issue.''

Dean was also asked his view of a February citizens' referendum in
Maine that repealed a gay-rights law passed by the Legislature.

``I disagree with what the voters did in Maine, and it points up the
dangers of having a citizen initiative,'' Dean said.

And he said repeatedly that civil rights and affirmative action do not
give some groups special rights.

``We're not talking special privileges here; we're talking the same
privileges as the majority population,'' Dean said.

Several students applauded when one youth got up and said to Dean, ``I
think one man and one woman should be together.''

``I have no quarrel with that,'' Dean said. ``What I do have a quarrel
with is incivility and intolerance.''

Oh, did I say hatred? I meant respect for their rights.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nicholas_J]

8. Lets take another look at Dean comments

Initially in December 1999, Dean made a coment about gay marriage:

Then, within one hour of the Vermont Supreme Court decision that declared gay marriage constitutional, Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867

But now lets move to February of 2000:

Opening Day Demonstration

Early assumptions following the Court’s December 20 decision were that domestic partnership is the only real plan of action. Governor Howard Dean has said on several occasions that he would support domestic partnership legislation, but is uncomfortable with the idea of actual gay marriage. Dean has recently clarified his position, declaring in a radio interview, “I’m against gay marriage.”

“Dean is out of touch with folks. I’m pretty sure that separate but equal isn’t going to fly,” said Judy Sargent of Marshfield, VT. “We should save ourselves a lot of trouble and time and just make it marriage.”

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/feb2000/news_centerstage.htm

Deans stance on gay "MARRIAGE" has suddenly gone from "UNCOMFORTABLE" to a clear "AGAINST". Why, one may ask?

Because what is not widely known among people outside of Vermont, is that there was not one piece of legislation (Civil Unions) before the Vermont legislature, but two, as referred to in the same OITM article:

Support for Marriage Grows

On January 14, House Bill 694, “An act relating to the ability to marry,” was introduced by a tri-partisan group of representatives.

Dean Corren of Burlington, lead sponsor of the bill, said the proposed legislation would make marriages between two people valid without regard to the gender of either person, provided they meet the requirements prescribed in the rest of Vermont’s existing marriage statutes.


Representatives Dean Corren and David Zuckerman are two of the six members of the House who signed onto H694, a bill that would include same-gender couples in Vermont's marriage statutes . photo: maxwell stroud

Co-sponsors Republican Gordon Bristol of Brattleboro, Democrat David Deen of Westminster, Republican William Suchmann of Chester, Democrat Mary Sullivan of Burlington, and Progressive David Zuckerman of Burlington signed onto the bill Corren, also a Progressive, called it the most expedient and effective way of dealing with the Supreme Court’s Baker decision...

Support for H.694 was not difficult to find, Corren said. While not everyone was willing to sign on as a sponsor, many legislators indicated a willingness to vote for the bill if it received the approval of the judiciary committee. In particular, they will be watching the reaction of the committee’s highly respected chair, Tom Little of Shelburne, whose backing is considered important for its passage.


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/feb2000/news_centerstage.htm

Deans statements about being "AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE" were being made at the same time that H694 was brought to the House and finding wide support.


Put in another light, with Deans support for H694, which had significant chance of support of the State Judiciary comittee, as the Supreme Court itself mandated either Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, Gay Marriage would have become the law of Vermont.

Given the federal governments clauses requiring that the federal government MUST recogonize state laws, as well as require other states to respect and give legitimacy to the laws of other states by accepting legal status given in other states, the passage of H694 would have made DOMA unconstitutional. The case to declare DOMA unconstitutional would have been made by the conflict between the constitutional obligation to recognize state laws that exists in DOMA.

Since the Civil Unions act is written is such a way as to state that it is only applicable to gays in Vermont and only applies to benefits provided Vermont, Civil Unions do not have to be recognized by any other state. H694, which provided for equity, and stated that gays must be given equal consideration under state marriage laws, so that there was nothing to differntiate marriage bettween gays and non-gays.

Requiring the federal government to extend the over 1000 beneftis available under federal law to non-gay married people to gays, as the H694 simply states that there is to be no differntiation between gay and straight marriages.
Dena clearly states that he opposed this.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

12. Do you still believe this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=107867#108746

Would you have them go bavk to medieval methods, Seaching to contraception and burning those caught at the stake. By the way burning of witches at the stake or those posessed by demons(which is how pedophilia was described before the 18th century) was far more often done by protestants than Catholics. For th most part, the church has tried to deal with these human problems humanely. They have tried to deal with the issue of GAY pedophelia(as most of those accused have been gay) in as humane a fashion as possible. trying to get the sick priest away from a situation in which he would engage in pedophilia again...

end of quote

This is a right wing theory of pedeophilia and is widely discredited by the AMA and the APA. If you believe in this why do you care at all who is better on gays?

[Nicholas_J]

13. Actually

as a Catholic, involved with these matters at discussions on how the issue of pedophilian my comments are revealing of truth about the nature of pedophilia among priestsin the catholic church, THe vast majority of repoted pedophilia in the church is of a male priest choose a young male.

Very sneaky of you to try to make it look that I am clling being gay sick, rather than the position on pedophilia, which is not viewed by any psychiatric organization as normal behavior.

No I do not beleive that gays are sick, but I do know that the majority of those who have been accused of pedophilia also happen to be gay. AS an ex seminarian (as the eldest child in a catholic family, I was supposed to be a priest, but it did not quite work out.)
The Catholic priesthood currently consists of 30 percent gay men, and current seminary enrollment consists of an estimated 50 percent gay men.) The issue of the priests and seminarians being gay is not an issue in the catholic church, Many Bishops are gay, and even a few Cardinals. The Church doesnt really give a damned, as they are supposed to be celibate and the church does not considers gays as being sinful, but the gay sexual act, so the Catholic Church has for years DONE what the Anglican Church is currently in a snit about.

THe Church simply takes the opinion that it is the pedophilia that is the problem , not the gayness. Unfortunately it is a fact that the largest number of those who have engaged in pedophilia in the church have also been gay. And this has now become an issue in the church to the degree that many heterosexual seminarians are leaving seminaries because the very large number of gay seminarians has created an environment that in which heterosexual seminarians are made uncomfortable:

This issue has been discussed often in the church, but here is a transcript from PBS' Religion and Ethics News, which is one of the most highly regarded media sources on religious issues, and both Homosexual and Heterosexual priests are interviewed

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: The scandals in the Catholic church have prompted wide-ranging questions about sexual orientation and practice, among them issues of homosexuality. Experts insist that pedophilia -- sexual attraction to children -- has no connection to homosexuality. Still, the crisis has renewed attention to the issue of gays in the priesthood -- how many there are, what the consequences may be, and whether the Church should be concerned. Judy Valente reports.


JUDY VALENTE: This priest is homosexual.

PRIEST "X": We're certainly aware that there are lots of priests who are gay.

VALENTE: The Catholic Church teaches that it is not a sin to have a homosexual orientation. But the Church also says the proper role of sexuality is between a man and a woman, and calls homosexuality "intrinsically disordered." This has alienated many gay Catholics.

PRIEST "X": It's a very charged subject in the Church right now.




http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week531/feature.html

Facts ARE Facts, and it is a great misfortune that for the most part, those priests who have been accused of pedophilia, at least in the Catholic Church, also happen to be gay.

One imprtant thing I did neglect to bring up is the fact that pedophila among priest in no more prevalent statistically than it is in the general population, or among the clergy in faiths that do not require celibacy.


I do find it amusing that many gays openely attack the catholic church and the pope, when the actual attitude towards gay in the Catholic Church on the whole is rather relaxes except for a few nutcases like Santorum

[Nicholas_J]

15. P.S.

You also use this post to evade the issue that Deans record on gay rights prior to being REQUIRED to sign the legislation that the courts demanded is rather slim.

Dena gave a nodding glance to gay rights in his first state of the state address, but like the majority of Democrats, they always talk the talk but docnot walk the walk. The wayy our government works is that the EXECUTIVE, whetther governor or president, frequently request legislation be created in the legislature that reflects his campaign platform and party policy.

You hear Dean speaking of all ofr the legislation he will call for as president.

It is also within the power and an obligation of ALL governors to do the same.

Now name me the legislations that supported gay rights thatr Dean requested prior to the VT Supreme Court Decision of December 20th 1999.

Not talk, but getting up off his ASS and actually doing somerthing to defend gay rights, that was within his power as governor. You will find NOTHING.

Kerry on the other hand has a stellar record of aithoring or sponsoring legislation directly written to deal with gay rights.

Authoring the gay civil rights act of 1985.

Authoring letters to demand that the harshest penalties be applied to soldiers and officers who actively sought out and harassed gay members of the military, inculding dishonorable discharge and imprisonment.

Standing up before the Senate Armened services comittee and directly chastising them in public for recommendation of throwing gays out of the military.

Calling for an exahaustive Congfressional investigation of attempts to get aroung the Dont Ask Dont tell policy that Clinton required.

O.K. what did Dean do that measures up to this other than signing something he had not choice in signing regardless of its popularity at the time. He could not veto it, he coud not refuse to sign it, as it was mandated by the courts. He could not change the state constitution or ask for it, as the wording of the court decision prohibited that.

Sorry, when it comes to gay rights, Kerry's actual history is far better than Deans mythological one.

[dsc]

21. Flat out bs

Dean signed and helped pass a gay and lesbian civil rights law in 92, within a few months of his governership, he appointed an openly gay house member, permitted couples to adopt jointly, and expanded benefits to same sex partners (both prior to civil unions)

[Nicholas_J]

24. Dean did not help pass it

It was a done deal in 1991 and was actuually the same bill that he said he would not support in 1986 which had been reppeately been brought to the Vermont Legislture since 1985 (actually in response to the federal government not passing Kerry's Gay Civil Rights Bill and modeled after it).

Dean had nor part in suggesting that such legislation be written as it had been written and brought before the VT LEgislature for years:

Again Deans support has always been passive and his desiciosn based on political safety.

Again note the dates:

During the late 1980's Bill was active in the lobbying effort for Vermont's the gay civil rights bill, which passed the legislature in 1991. In 1990, Bill was a founding board member of Outright Vermont, organized to serve the unmet needs of LGBTQA youth, and for many years served on the board of Vermont's largest AIDS service organization, VT CARES.

http://www.samarafoundation.org/about_sub02c.html

The bill was around long before Dean signed it and it was the bill the Dean referred to in 1986 when he said he would not support it.

So now lets cut to the chase...

Who has a longer record of supporting gay civil right..

John Kerry, who wote the Federal gay Civil Rights bill of 1985...

Or Howard Dean, who opposed such a bill in 1986.

The bill pased in 1991, as the legislatuve session ended, adn had to wait to be signed until 1992.

Again, Dean only part in this was wielding a pen on a bill that had obbious support. But it was the same bill he said he would not support 6 years earlier.

[dsc]

27. according to OITM he did

via their paper of record OITM. The following has been posted not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, but over a half dozen times. Posters who claim that Dean supporters never have posted his are telling you tales they like. They are not tell you facts. For the record, yet again, this is OITM about Dean.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm
start of quote

Dean, a Democrat, has served as Governor since 1991. Prior to succeeding Gov. Richard Snelling, who died unexpectedly in office, Dean served as Lieutenant Governor and represented Burlington in the Vermont House of Representatives. Dean, a physician, is married to Dr. Judith Steinberg, and has two children.

As Governor, Dean has historically sided with Vermont’s gay and lesbian community. He is credited with helping pass, and ultimately signing into law, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also supported the extension of benefits to the domestic partners of Vermont State employees. In 1994, Dean appointed Bill Lippert, an openly gay man, to fill a vacant seat in the House of Representatives. As a result of the state’s new civil union law, national gay newsmagazine The Advocate recently dubbed him the “Dean of unions.”

OITM: Immediately after the Supreme Court’s Baker ruling, you sided with domestic partnership legislation. How did you come to make this decision and what role do you think your position played in the ultimate outcome of the debate?



end of quote

The story the Dean bashers like to tell is that Dean never supported gay rights until he had to. The truth, as told by Vermont gays is that "Dean has historicly sided with the gay community".

The story that Dean bashers like to tell is that Dean never passed or signed any pro gay legislation until civil unions in 2000. The truth, as told by Vermont gays, is that "Dean is credited with helping pass and ultimately signing into law, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation".

The story Dean bashers like to tell is that Dean never acted administratively to benefit gays. The truth, as told by Vermont gays, is that Dean "appointed the first openly gay house member, permitted joint adoptions by gay couples, and extended benefits to domestic partners."

The story Dean bashers like to tell is that the Vermont Supreme Court decision forced Dean to sign civil unions legislation. The truth, as found in the Vermont constitution, is as follows:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm

dtart of quote
72.

At the biennial session of the General Assembly of this State which convenes in A.D. 1975, and at the biennial session convening every fourth year thereafter, the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may propose amendments to this Constitution, with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives with the amendment as proposed by the Senate. A proposed amendment so adopted by the Senate and concurred in by the House of Representatives shall be referred to the next biennial session of the General Assembly; and if at that last session a majority of the members of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives concur in the proposed amendment, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit the proposal directly to the voters of the state. Any proposed amendment submitted to the voters of the state in accordance with this section which is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon shall become part of the Constitution of this State.

Prior to the submission of a proposed amendment to a vote in accordance with this section, public notice of the proposed amendment shall be given by proclamation of the Governor.

The General Assembly shall provide for the manner of voting on amendments proposed under this section, and shall enact legislation to carry the provisions of this section into effect.

end of quote

I will not break up the quote and explain the process step by step.

At the biennial session of the General Assembly of this State which convenes in A.D. 1975, and at the biennial session convening every fourth year thereafter, the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may propose amendments to this Constitution, with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives with the amendment as proposed by the Senate.

explanation

The decision that legalized gay unions was handed down in 1999 which is 24 years after 1975. Thus the amending process could have begun immediately as per the above. An amendment could be proposed, not approved but proposed, by 2/3 of the Senate and a majority of the House. This is the only part of the process which required a supermajority of any kind and only to propose. This could easily have been framed, like Impeachment of Clinton had been in the House, as a vote to "let the people decide" the future of marriage in Vermont. I can't tell you if the 12 votes needed to block this existed in the Senate existed or didn't. But I can tell you all of the following which suggests to me they may well not have. Gay marriage was at 35% in the polls. Vermont was the third state to have a decision like this. The other two amended their constitutions. These, unlike the Dean bashers pleasing tales, are facts.

quote

A proposed amendment so adopted by the Senate and concurred in by the House of Representatives shall be referred to the next biennial session of the General Assembly; and if at that last session a majority of the members of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives concur in the proposed amendment, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit the proposal directly to the voters of the state. Any proposed amendment submitted to the voters of the state in accordance with this section which is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon shall become part of the Constitution of this State.

Explanation

Had the amendment been proposed the legislature elected in 2000 would have been the one to adopt. Civil unions took a beating in that election. The House changed party (Dem to Rep) on that issue alone. The Senate lost some very prominate civil union supporters. There isn't a doubt in my mind that this amendment would have been submitted to a majority of Vermonters by that assembly. That leaves the people of Vermont. Poll, after poll, after poll, even those posted by Dean bashers show that civil unions never, as in not even one time, polled above 44%. The people would have approved the amendment in a landslide.

What I provided you, via Vermont's LGBT paper of record are facts. Not stories I like but honest facts. Ask yourself who knows what they are talking about here. LGBT Vermonters or straights who have never lived in or been in Vermont. I know who I believe. As a teen would say. Duh.

[Nicholas_J]

47. According to OITM

He also said he would not support it.

Sorry, Dean came into this VERY VERY late in the game. Years after it was repeatedly placed up for votes, when Dean as the President of the Senate, had a great Deal of say about all legislation in the Senate.


A number of references to the gay and lesbian community's support of Dean being a betrayal are also mentioned in letters to OITM:

I must admit that I have had suspicions for some time that the leadership of the Freedom to Marry Task Force (now conveniently renamed Vermonters for Civil Unions) was more interested in gaining economic privilege and access to power then seeking justice. Their letter confirms my opinion. To endorse Governor Dean for reelection based on his closeted signature of a severely compromised bill, without looking at his real positions on gay marriage and other issues of concern to the progressive community, is short-sighted and wrong.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul2000/letters.htm

Thats a number of strikes against Dean in the same magazine.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

10. Okey-dokey

But Dean has huge support in the GBLT community.

Kerry probably has good support there too, he has been very strong on gay rights. No argument from me there.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Dean signing the civil union bill is as if Bush had signed one himself

IOW- It proves that in a moment of rare clarity Dean had the sense to do the right thing. Aside of that Dean and Bush aren't very different.
Thanks once again for your fine work here Nicholas.

[Nicholas_J]

16. My prior posts show

That Deans support of gay rights is rather sketchy, and much show concern for the political risks involved, rather than actual willingness to support gay rights anywhere buy in public speeches.

AS governor, it was always in his power to request legislation that even protected gays rights in other ways unrelated to civil unions. Did he ever do so. NO.

AS I said, most democrats ALWAYS talk about gay civil rights, but few get up off their butts to actually risk DOING something.

Kerry did that many times in numerous pieces of legislations and joint letters to various governmental agnecies from the Senate demanding that these bodies adhere to laws protecting the civil rights of gays SCRUPULOUSLY.

Kerry's total record on active support for gays far surpasses Denas active support.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Unfortunately Dean's Kool-Aid to GLBTs is pretty strong

he's got a lot of support from them because of this one thing he's done.

[killbotfactory]

18. Yeah, what a bandwagon jumper

Governor Dean Supports Gay Rights

Governor Howard Dean, in his State of the State Address before the Vermont Legislature on January 7th, included support for the full civil rights of lesbians and gays in his agenda for the current legislative session.

"I also ask this General Assembly to continue Vermont's strong tradition of civil rights by passing the gay rights bill so that no group of Vermonters suffers from bigotry and intolerance."

February 02, 1992

See post #6 for more bandwagon jumping!

[Nicholas_J]

19. Now show the specific legislation

That was passed and Deans support for it.

Was there any?

P.S. Kerry's gay Civil Rights Bill dates from 1985.

Who is jumping on WHO's bandwagon?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. Yeah.... and Vermont was a conservative backwater till Dean got there

and shook it up. :eyes:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. You really didn't get the point of that post?

Hard to believe. You're smarter than that.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nicholas_J]

23. What civil rights bill

did Dean signn in 1992.

Provide the evidence.

Kerry WROTE a gay civil rights bill in 1985

Kerry says his record over the years on a range of issues sets him apart from other candidates. In 1985, he authored the Senate version of the gay civil rights bill — a measure that, if passed, would have covered discrimination in employment, housing and credit. His average score on the Human Rights Campaign's congressional scorecard, begun in the 101st Congress, is 96 percent — with a perfect score for the last four congresses

http://www.hrc.org/publications/hrcq/hrcq03sp/kerry.asp

Seven years before tyhe bill you are stating Dean supported and a year before Dean said he WOULD NOT support a separate gay rights bill.

Again:

Lieutenant Governor: Howard Dean would not support a civil rights bill "aimed specifically at any given group" but he would include lesbian/gay civil rights protection in a broader bill. He did support the HTLV-III anti-discrimination bill sponsored by Micque Glitmen last year. He would support state funding for education and services to people with AIDS and people in high-risk groups. He would support re-instituting the State Human Rights Commission. He was ambivalent about appointing a liaison simply because he wasn't sure if it was necessary because of numerous "friends and supporters" in the gay community.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1986/11nov1986/

Read it in 1986 while Dean was running for Lt Governor he directly stated HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT a separate civil right bill for gays. Kerry authored and sponsored one a year before Dean said he WOULD NOT SUPPORT such a bill.

Again Dean has a record of stating he would not support a bill specifically regarding the civil rights of gays.

In 1992, Dena again signed a bill that existed and was being fough for in the Vermont Legislature for a long perios before Dean became governor.

The was again the responsibility and fight of Bill Lippert,who started pushing a gay civil rights bill the same year that Dean initially said he would NOT SUPPORT such separate legislation, and Dean again played LITTLE active part in this legislation except for stating that he recommended its passage after it had already reached the stage of having enough support to pass:


During the late 1980's Bill was active in the lobbying effort for Vermont's the gay civil rights bill, which passed the legislature in 1991. In 1990, Bill was a founding board member of Outright Vermont, organized to serve the unmet needs of LGBTQA youth, and for many years served on the board of Vermont's largest AIDS service organization, VT CARES.

In an effort to create and leverage new and permanent financial resources for Vermont LGBT organizations, in 1992, along with Burlington attorney and fellow activist David Curtis, Bill co-founded a gay community foundation, now known as Samara Foundation of Vermont.

Since 1994, Bill has served in the Vermont House of Representatives, as an openly gay legislator, representing the Town of Hinesburg. Serving as the Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee in 2000, Bill was instrumental in the work to write, debate and pass Vermont's historic Civil Union law. Vermont Civil Unions, for the first time anywhere in the United States, grant legal recognition to lesbian and gay couples, conferring on them all of the same rights and responsibilities available through the Vermont marriage statutes. Read Bill Lippert's speech made on March 15, 2000 on the floor of the Vermont House of Representatives

IN essance in 1992 Dean was recommending the passage of a bill in 1992, which had already passed the Vermont Legislature in 1991.

Again, arguments about Deans support of gay issues is sprious at best, as he opposed the such legislation in 1986, and then only recommended its passage at the time it was obviously a done deal.

Not active participation. Just as active as signing the civil union acts was.

Again, Find a source in which Dean suggested the creation of such legislation, took an active part in the guidance and support of it, fought for its passage and actively sought to garner support among legislators.

Kerry WROTE one.

Didnt happen. Deans support has been largely passsive.

And now the question again. WHo, Kerry or Dean has the longest, and most consistant record of giving DIRECT support to legislation regarding gay civil rights:

Howard Dean, Or John Kerry.

[dsc]

26. read it and weep

and apologize BTW

I have posted this, in threads that you have directly responded to, on over a half dozen occasions. Also you, yourself have posted this very same article on several occasions.

via their paper of record OITM. The following has been posted not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, but over a half dozen times. Posters who claim that Dean supporters never have posted his are telling you tales they like. They are not tell you facts. For the record, yet again, this is OITM about Dean.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm
start of quote

Dean, a Democrat, has served as Governor since 1991. Prior to succeeding Gov. Richard Snelling, who died unexpectedly in office, Dean served as Lieutenant Governor and represented Burlington in the Vermont House of Representatives. Dean, a physician, is married to Dr. Judith Steinberg, and has two children.

As Governor, Dean has historically sided with Vermont’s gay and lesbian community. He is credited with helping pass, and ultimately signing into law, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also supported the extension of benefits to the domestic partners of Vermont State employees. In 1994, Dean appointed Bill Lippert, an openly gay man, to fill a vacant seat in the House of Representatives. As a result of the state’s new civil union law, national gay newsmagazine The Advocate recently dubbed him the “Dean of unions.”

OITM: Immediately after the Supreme Court’s Baker ruling, you sided with domestic partnership legislation. How did you come to make this decision and what role do you think your position played in the ultimate outcome of the debate?



end of quote

The story the Dean bashers like to tell is that Dean never supported gay rights until he had to. The truth, as told by Vermont gays is that "Dean has historicly sided with the gay community".

The story that Dean bashers like to tell is that Dean never passed or signed any pro gay legislation until civil unions in 2000. The truth, as told by Vermont gays, is that "Dean is credited with helping pass and ultimately signing into law, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation".

The story Dean bashers like to tell is that Dean never acted administratively to benefit gays. The truth, as told by Vermont gays, is that Dean "appointed the first openly gay house member, permitted joint adoptions by gay couples, and extended benefits to domestic partners."

The story Dean bashers like to tell is that the Vermont Supreme Court decision forced Dean to sign civil unions legislation. The truth, as found in the Vermont constitution, is as follows:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm

dtart of quote
72.

At the biennial session of the General Assembly of this State which convenes in A.D. 1975, and at the biennial session convening every fourth year thereafter, the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may propose amendments to this Constitution, with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives with the amendment as proposed by the Senate. A proposed amendment so adopted by the Senate and concurred in by the House of Representatives shall be referred to the next biennial session of the General Assembly; and if at that last session a majority of the members of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives concur in the proposed amendment, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit the proposal directly to the voters of the state. Any proposed amendment submitted to the voters of the state in accordance with this section which is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon shall become part of the Constitution of this State.

Prior to the submission of a proposed amendment to a vote in accordance with this section, public notice of the proposed amendment shall be given by proclamation of the Governor.

The General Assembly shall provide for the manner of voting on amendments proposed under this section, and shall enact legislation to carry the provisions of this section into effect.

end of quote

I will not break up the quote and explain the process step by step.

At the biennial session of the General Assembly of this State which convenes in A.D. 1975, and at the biennial session convening every fourth year thereafter, the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may propose amendments to this Constitution, with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives with the amendment as proposed by the Senate.

explanation

The decision that legalized gay unions was handed down in 1999 which is 24 years after 1975. Thus the amending process could have begun immediately as per the above. An amendment could be proposed, not approved but proposed, by 2/3 of the Senate and a majority of the House. This is the only part of the process which required a supermajority of any kind and only to propose. This could easily have been framed, like Impeachment of Clinton had been in the House, as a vote to "let the people decide" the future of marriage in Vermont. I can't tell you if the 12 votes needed to block this existed in the Senate existed or didn't. But I can tell you all of the following which suggests to me they may well not have. Gay marriage was at 35% in the polls. Vermont was the third state to have a decision like this. The other two amended their constitutions. These, unlike the Dean bashers pleasing tales, are facts.

quote

A proposed amendment so adopted by the Senate and concurred in by the House of Representatives shall be referred to the next biennial session of the General Assembly; and if at that last session a majority of the members of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives concur in the proposed amendment, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit the proposal directly to the voters of the state. Any proposed amendment submitted to the voters of the state in accordance with this section which is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon shall become part of the Constitution of this State.

Explanation

Had the amendment been proposed the legislature elected in 2000 would have been the one to adopt. Civil unions took a beating in that election. The House changed party (Dem to Rep) on that issue alone. The Senate lost some very prominate civil union supporters. There isn't a doubt in my mind that this amendment would have been submitted to a majority of Vermonters by that assembly. That leaves the people of Vermont. Poll, after poll, after poll, even those posted by Dean bashers show that civil unions never, as in not even one time, polled above 44%. The people would have approved the amendment in a landslide.

What I provided you, via Vermont's LGBT paper of record are facts. Not stories I like but honest facts. Ask yourself who knows what they are talking about here. LGBT Vermonters or straights who have never lived in or been in Vermont. I know who I believe. As a teen would say. Duh.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Could we please have some more info about this Civil rights Law

from 1992? I mean, that's what's Nicholas_J is asking about and you totally avoided his question and just reposted the same stuff about about the civil unions issue. Again.

What about this 1992 Civil Rights law?

Here is the relevant part of the original post that you have tried so hard to not respond to:

Lieutenant Governor: Howard Dean would not support a civil rights bill "aimed specifically at any given group" but he would include lesbian/gay civil rights protection in a broader bill. He did support the HTLV-III anti-discrimination bill sponsored by Micque Glitmen last year. He would support state funding for education and services to people with AIDS and people in high-risk groups. He would support re-instituting the State Human Rights Commission. He was ambivalent about appointing a liaison simply because he wasn't sure if it was necessary because of numerous "friends and supporters" in the gay community.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1986/11nov1986/

Dean sure does not sound like an advocate for gay rights here... rather like someone who is willing to 'go along' with the notion. He says he 'would not support a civil rights bill "aimed specifically at any given group" but he would include lesbian/gay civil rights protection in a broader bill'. When Dean came out against specific legislation aimedn at protecting gay rights, are we supposed to interpret that as being for gay rights? Why?

[dsc]

33. This bill

It Passed!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deborah Lashman
After a long wait and much hard work, the civil rights bill is on its way to becoming law. Vermont is poised to become the sixth state in the U.S., joining Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Hawaii, and New Jersey, in providing civil rights protections for its lesbian and gay citizens.

Final House approval came April 13th, on a vote of 73 to 67 with 9 members voting absent. Initially approved the previous Friday, by a vote of 71 to 58 with 20 members voting absent, the bill survived weekend efforts to derail it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. So what was in this bill that led Dean to support it

when he had previously said he ' would not support a civil rights bill "aimed specifically at any given group" '? What is the difference between the bill he signed and what he was opposed to? Is this something you are getting out of a book, is that why you aren't providing a link?

What changed between 1986 and 1992? Did Dean change his mind? Did the political climate change?

[dsc]

37. Do I look like Carnac?

I provided a link to the name and date passed for the bill. I provided a link by people who are in a position to know who give him credit for helping pass it and having signed it. If you wish to know its exact contents I would suggest you find a copy of it. If you still haven't found one tomorrow then I will try to myself but it is getting late and I am only staying up for a little while longer.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. I don't know - post your picture and we can compare

;-)

Look don't knock yourself out about the bill. It sounds completely consistent with his 1986 statement.

[Nicholas_J]

42. What led Dean to finally support it

Was that it actually had great support before Dean became governor at the begginning of the 1991 legislative session, and had a supermajority number of supporters at theend of the session at the end of 1991.

Dean gave his speech in the beginning of 1992, when the bill had overwheming support and prior this Dean did not give on indication of his support for it or not.

This comes from the Samara Foundation, started by the person who started Vermonts first gay Pride rallies and marches, Bill Lippert, and it states that he had been lobbying for it since the 1980's.

It is Dean trying to steal the thunder from this wonderfully hardworking man who had lobbied that bill until it had overwheming support.




By the time of Dean state of the state address, Dean simply acceding to a political fact that this bill had more than enough support to pass whther he said anything or not. Dean did not start it and his request that it be supported early in 1992 was Dean trying to get on the bandwagon of something that was inevitable. Nothing Dean did had anything to do with getting the bill passed. It was all but passed anyway.

The very bill Dean opposed in 1986. Again Dean politically canny trying to take credit wheer absolutely NONE is due.

[dsc]

43. Funny this article contra dicts you

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1992/04apr1992/

This is from April of 92 and certainly isn't being portrayed as a done deal.

Several supporters noted anti-testimony was not as vehement as in past years. They described opponents as "dispirited" and "more tempered." Russell said he wondered if opponents were "getting ex-hausted, or smarter." Keith Goslant summarized opponents' strategy as essentially three-pronged: claim anti-discrimination legislation is not needed; claim that it is a "special rights" bill; and point out that constitutional protections such as the right to assemble and organize are already guaranteed under law. The strategy, Goslant believes, comes from the National Conservative Legislative Council. A letter from the Council outlining their policy position was submitted as evidence to the committee.

In an unusual display of bluster, Graham O'Donahoe of Northfield claimed that fat people, short people, or veterans of unpopular wars would be next in line if gay people were granted this special protection. Gene Barfield of Montpelier told of his friend, a bronze star Desert Storm veteran, who fought for the Emir of Kuwait and returned home without his own civil rights. "As a patriot," Barfield said, "I'm disgusted that I spent ten years defending everyone else only to find it doesn't apply to me."

end of quote

Guess they just don't know what they are talking about either.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Umm, you've got it backwards.

If the PROPONENTS were described as "dispirited" it would back you up.

[dsc]

51. The claim is that it was a done deal in 91

this is showing it still hadn't been passed in 92. Done deals are usually just that, done deals.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. No, the REAL claim is Dean just 'went along' rather than being an advocate

Or, at least, that is what I see as Dean's weak point in this area.

The fact is, Dean has a good record on gay rights. No one is disputing that.

Kerry, just has a better, longer record.

[dsc]

54. I can read

That poster on more than one occasion claimed this was a done deal in 91 that is false. It isn't my fault he chose to post false info.

[Nicholas_J]

55. The bill completely passed the Vermont House in 1991

It was held up in the Senate, becasu Dean became governor in Augist, and then his position as Lt Governor who also is the PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, had to be replaced, holding up the Senate vote past the end of the 1991 legislative year. There were more candidates comitted to voting for the bill in the Senate which was had a large democratic majority, than in the house which had a marginal democratic majority.

The bill had passed in the House in 1991, and had almost no opposition in the Senate.

There was more than 2/3rd support in both houses for the bill when Dean made his speech asking people to support it. All that was holding back the senate from dealing with it was Dean himself, for whom it was NOT a high priority, and who would only discuss the fiscal situation and the budget deficit with them and it discuss other legislation.

The statements in OITM praising Dean for his support was largely political ass kissing in order to get and keep Deans attention.
Again, Dean seeing a fact was about to occur, and he wanted to get on the bandwagon.

[dsc]

56. Done deals are done deals

and it is beyond absurd that the Seante couldn't run without Dean. They have a President Pro tem for pete's sake. Yet again you just don't know what you are talking about. As late as April of 92 people fighting for this bill were begging supporters to call people. They took testimony in 92. YOu just plain don't know what you are talking about and since you don't live there I will take the words of those who do and who cared about the bill.

[Nicholas_J]

62. Dean

Did not deal with any of the issues that the senate had going and limited his dealing with them on budget alone.

There were enough votes committed to pass the bill before Dean decided it would be advantageous to him to make his statement.

As pointed out by the Bill Lippert again, this bill was up for passage in 1991, it was in the legisature in 1991.

The Civil Rights Bill will be introduced into the legislature once again this biennium. The Vermont Coalition of Lesbians and Gay Men will be holding a Steering Committee meeting to help chart the course of this bill. Information on other bills of interest will also be passed on at these meeting. The Steering Committee meetings will be held on Tuesday evenings at 7:00 p.m. at the A.C.L.U. office on State Street in Montpelier.


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1991/02feb1991/civil.html

A list of all of those who sponsored it alone prior to Deans speech of January 7, 92, this does not include others who support the bill, but is a list of all the legislators sponsoring it when it was first introduced, a year propr to Deans speech in January of 1991:

Since the bill was simultaneously introduced into both the House and Senate, both committees need to know there is support. Also, as the bill passes from one chamber to the other, we will have already built a base of support.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee:

Chair: Sally Fox, D-Essex
Orlando Campbell, R- Manchester
David Clarkson, D-Newfane
Brian Pendleton, D-Proctor
Ruth Stokes, D-Williston
Benoit Blais, D-Derby
Thomas Alderman, D-Middlebury
John Freidin, D-New Haven
Peter Mallary, D-Newbury
Mary Sullivan, D-Burlington
Particia Welch, R-Springfield

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Chair: John Bloomer, R-Rutland
David Wolk, D-Rutland
Mary Just Skinner, D-Washington
Stephen Webster, R-Orange
Jan Backus, D-Windham
J. Dennis Delany, R -Chittenden

It is also important to give ongoing support to the sponsors of the bill. They will be bringing the bill up for discussion in party caucuses and with their peers. Our supporters will also be hearing from our opposition; a friendly voice will be welcomed.

Sponsors - House:

Vi Luginbuhl, R-South Burlington
Alice Bassett, D-Burlington
Terry Bouricius, PC-Burlington
Lovenia Bright, D-South Burlington
Sean Campbell, D-Rockingham
Nancy Chard, D-Brattleboro
Andy Christiansen, D-East Montpelier
Paul Cillo, D- Hardwick
David Clarkson, D-Newfane
Hamilton Davis, D-Burlington
David Deen, D-Westminster
David Larson, D- Wilmington
Doris Lingelbach, D- Thetford
Peg Martin, D- Middlebury
Curt McConnack, D-Rutland
Lisa O'Neil, R-Hartford
Jane Potvin, D-South Hero
Helen Riehle, R-Burlington
Charles Ross, D-Hinesburg
Inge Schaefer, R-Colchester
Ann Seibert, D-Norwich
Peter Shumlin, D-Putney
Tom Smith, PC-Burlington
Ron Squires, D-Guilford
Mary Sullivan, D-Burlington

Sponsors - Senate:

David Wolk, D-Rutland
Jan Backus, D-Windham
Mary Ann Carlson, D-Bennington
Sally Conrad, D-Chittenden
Edwin Granai, D-Chittenden
Althea Kroger, D-Chittenden
George Little, R-Chittenden
Richard McCormack, D- Windsor
Doug Racine, D-Chittenden
Elizabeth Ready, D-Addison
Cheryl Rivers, D- Windsor

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1992/02feb1992/update.html

A reference to the fact that the gay and lebian community indicates that there is enough support to pass the bill in January of 1992, the same month that Dean decided to ask people to support it:

IT'S NOT OVER YET FOLKS!
While the 1991 legislature adjourned without taking any action on the civil rights bill, they still have next year to outlaw discrimination in Vermont. Two bills were introduced this year, one in the House, H.162 introduced by Rep. Vi Luginbuhl (R-So. Burlington) and one in the Senate, S.131 by Sen. David Wolk (D-Rutland County). Both would outlaw discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, insurance and banking procedures, and guarantee enforcement of existing domestic abuse laws:


We made the tactical decision to start in the Senate this time in order to provide the momentum needed to pass the bill to the House. We knew that we had the votes in the full Senate once we got the bill out of the committee. Unfortunately we didn't realize that of the 15 weeks available for committee time the Senate Judiciary Committee would spend 10 of them on DWI, 3 on proposals dealing with bail and depositions, and one to finsh up. So despite the support of three of the six committee members (Sens. Jan Backus, D-Windham Cty., David Wolk, D-Rutland Cty., Mary Just Skinner, D-Washington Cty.) we were unable to get the committee to spend the one to tow days necessary to work on the bill.

While disappointed, we were not discouraged. Though the hard work of Keith Goslant, Holly Perdue, Rep. Ron Squires and others in the Lesbian/Gay community, I am confident that we have the votes to get the bill out of committee and passed by the Senate when the legislature reconvenes in January.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1991/0708July_Aug1991/civil.html


Deans entire comment regarding the bill in his state of the state address:


"I also ask this General Assembly to continue Vermont's strong tradition of civil rights by passing the gay rights bill so that no group of Vermonters suffers from bigotry and intolerance."


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1992/02feb1992/dean.html

31 words, count 'em. In the entire six years between Deans statement that he would not support such a bill in 1986.

What did Dean have to say between August, 1991 when he became governor, and January 7th when he asked people to pass the bill that already had 36 sponsors for over a year.

But lets check out the year that the bill that Dean finally made his 31 word statement about was drafted and FIRST introduced:

The first meeting of this legislative subcommittee was on November 23 in Worcester, Vermont. The two women and four men discussed the merits of introducing a state lesbian/gay civil rights bill, versus more support building at the community level. Some voiced concern that the recent ERA campaign has suggested to the lesbian/gay community that we cannot e4va a great deal of support from other liberal organizations; and that if we introduce legislation, we will need to be ready to do a great deal of work. Others felt that, given the results of the ERA campaign, the lesbian/gay community needs to come back strongly. Introducing the bill could show us where our support lies, allowing us to identify allies and attempt coalition building. Another person thought that the introduction of the bill could be the impetus for an extensive educational process for legislators.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1987/02feb1987/bill.html

This is the February 19976 issue of OITM adn it refers to the bill being drafted in NOVEMBER of the prior year 1986. This is the bill that Dean said he would not support.

Another article about the history of the bill from inception to passage.

Meanwhile the Human Rights Commission was holding hearings on hate crimes. On March 23, 1990, a hate crimes bill passed the House. In December, 1990, Ron Squires was elected to the House and became Vermont’s first openly gay legislator. As the 1991 session began, once again, an anti-discrimination bill was introduced to both the House and the Senate, but because the legislature was busy with other business, no action was taken on these bills before adjournment. This marked the fifth year that the GLBTQ community was working for passage of such a bill.

I came out as a gay man in the fall of 1991, but I’m ashamed to say I was oblivious to all of the gay rights activity of that time. In December, 1991, on another course outside of Montpelier, in Addison County Probate Court, Judge Chester Ketchum approved the first gay/lesbian second parent adoption in the state and one of the first in the country. Back in Montpelier on February 27, 1992, several hundred gay community supporters gathered for yet another public hearing on the civil rights bill. Finally, no doubt after our co-liaisons had spent many hours in conversation with legislators, in May, 1992, a momentous headline ran in OITM: “IT PASSED!” “This is the first time in my 38 years I feel like a real citizen,” said Keith Goslant of the accomplishment. The law took effect on July 1, 1992.


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/mar2000/oe_before.htm

References made to the many people who fought for the bill since its initial drafting in 1986.

Howard Dean is not mentioned.

First introduction of the bill for the first time:


State Coalition Approves L/G Rights Bill


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sixty-five people at the Statewide Coalition meeting in South Royalton on Sunday, February 2, unanimously agreed to endorse the introduction of a Lesbian/Gay Civil Rights Bill into the legislature. The bill was introduced Tuesday, February 10 by Representative Micque Glitman in the General Assembly.

The Legislative Subcommittee of the Statewide Coalition drafted the bill using the sam e definitions used in the federal bill. The bill proposes to add the words, "affectional or sexual orientation" to existing anti-discrimination statues on employment, banking, insurance, credit, and housing. Statutes which don't specifically mention gender, such as the adoption statute, were not included in the scope of the bill.
Separate men's and women's meetings were held in the morning to debate the merits of introducing the bill now. During the separate and joint discussions, several people noted the need to distinguish general support for gay civil rights from support for a bill during this session. People discussed the certainty of renewed harassment, remobilization of ERA opposition groups, attacks in the press and abuse in the workplace and small towns.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1987/03mar1987/approval.html

Notice this is 1987, Dean was Lt Governor...where was his support.

And the VERY FIRST ARTICLE published in OITM after the bill passed through both houses:

Final House approval came April 13th, on a vote of 73 to 67 with 9 members voting absent. Initially approved the previous Friday, by a vote of 71 to 58 with 20 members voting absent, the bill survived weekend efforts to derail it.



A wide margin of success (20-9) in passing the bill in the Senate earlier in April gave supporters encouragement for the fight in the House. Keith Goslant, Co-Liaison to the Governor, Statewide Coalition for Lesbians and Gay Men, said he was suprised that the bill was approved by such a margin. "It shows change is really happening. This gives me every indication this bill is going to pass this session. " Senate approval came after an hour of debate, during which Senator David Wolk, chief sponsor of the bill, remarked, "It is incumbent on us together to establish the highest standards and common expectations in Vermont that we will not tolerate prejudice."

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1992/05may1992/

AS these articles indicate, this bill had massive support, OITM mentions that it has enough support to pass as soon as the re-adjourns in January of 1992. Dean KNOWS it has enough support to pass when he makes its speech, all of its supporters know. Dean jumps onto an extremely popular bill that HE objected to 6 years earlier.

His support comes do late in the game that it makes no differnce at all what he says about it, which is damned little at the State of the State address, and was NON-EXISTANT in between August 14th, 1991 when he becomes governor, and January 6th when he makes his 31 word relatively weak statement about it that comes directly from the Democratic Party Handbook on Civil rights withe the word, fill in the name of appropriate city, county or state, in the blank.

As a matter of fact, there wass SO much support for the bill that those who were against it had to start resorting to sneding hate mail to the legislature with a pamplet written by one of the few in legislature who opposed it about the "homosexual lifestyle" (in the title of the book not my words, so you will not accuse me of using making negative insinuations about gays).

Dean is very clever, he withholds support for bills when they are not popular, stays silent when he does not know how the outcome will effect him politically, and gives lame excuses for doing so, likexnot wanting to discuss a case that is before the courts, or he does not want to support a gay civil rights bill but would prefer including their rights in a broader general civil rights bill.

No matter how you try to spin it. the statements of one gay in a letter to the editor of OITM, and a Vermont Legislator sums Dean up perfectly:

Governor Dean signed the bill because he knew that he had no choice – he was locked in because he said on day one that he did not support gay marriage but did support domestic partnerships. If Dean could have avoided this issue, he would have. Let us not kid ourselves.

If the people running Vermonters for Civil Unions want to pander to Governor Dean so they can retain access to the “man in charge,” so be it. But I will not support this travesty – I will work to smash the patriarchy and the privilege that goes with it. Then, and only then, will all people live in honor and dignity.

Governor Dean has proven that he’ll only support us when he’s trapped or it’s convenient. For example, his recent interview with OITM where he virtually begged the queer community to support him over Anthony Pollina is simple, pathetic fear-mongering. He feels trapped and he comes to us for help. It’s truly depressing to see the privileged elites of the GLBT community and the privileged elites of the Democratic Party falling all over themselves in an effort to suck up to one another. The Governor should be ashamed of himself for attempting to scare queer folk and progressives into voting for him.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul2000/letters.htm

A number of other articles by gays in the gay media also take a similar stance on Dean, and this is a leading one:


Vote your hopes, not your fears
by Alexander Cockburn
The Nation magazine, October 30, 2000

Democrats of the stripe of Dean and Gore know how to talk the talk. They don't move a finger to expand human freedoms or opportunities, then boast that they alone are the bulwark against right-wing attacks on such freedoms and opportunities. After undermining choice and gay rights for much of his Congressional career, Gore now tells women and gays that he is the prime defender of choice and gay rights. At a gay event in Los Angeles, Dean claimed the hero's mantle for signing Vermont's civil union law giving gay couples the same state benefits as married couples. But he was never out front on this issue, moved only under direct order of the courts and then, in an act of consummate cowardice, nervously scribbled his signature to the law secluded from press or camera. So what does our Vermont parable add up to? Independent in name only, Sanders sold out to the Democratic machine long ago. He's no longer part of a movement. He's not a member of the Progressive Party and has not endorsed Pollina. In his reelection race for November, he's outflanked on both politics and gender, facing a Democrat to his left (Peter Diamondstone) and a transsexual moderate Republican (Karen Kerin). But the big story is not Sanders' dismal trajectory; it is that third-party politics in Vermont has moved out of his sad shadow and is changing the face of the state. The Progressives have also endorsed Nader.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/VoteHopes_NotFears.html

there are many other articles that also accuse Dean of fear mongering in this event.

The claims that are made that Dean took an enormous risk by signing this bill (the fact that he had ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE, is always denied by bringing up the bogus argument about the legislature voting to change the constitution was a danger looming over the head of Dean is bogus, as every year prior to the Baker v State case and the courts decision, opponents to gay rights tried to pass ANTI GAY MARRAIGE laws, and they all went down in flames).

Poll suggests limited fallout from gay bill
By JACK HOFFMAN Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - A majority of Vermonters disapprove of the civil unions bill signed into law last week, but with the gubernatorial and legislative elections still six months away, it does not appear that the granting of legal benefits to same-gender couples is a defining campaign issue for most voters.

In a poll conducted last week by the Rutland Herald, Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and WCAX Channel 3 News, 52 percent said they disapproved of the civil unions bill, and 43 percent said they approved. Within those two categories, 16 expressed strong disapproval and 9 percent said they strongly approved.

The people surveyed, who identified themselves as registered voters, were asked how important the passage of the civil unions bill would be in determining their vote for governor.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/limitedfallout.html

Absolutely no effect on Dean for signing the bill and that was born out in November, when the electorate voted overwhelmingly for the two pro gay rights candidates with 60 percent of the vote going to either Dean or Pollina.

About a quarter (24 percent) said it would be important: 5 percent rated it as "very important," and 19 percent said it was "somewhat important."

Just over half (51 percent) said the issue wouldn't have much weight: 33 percent said it was "not very important," and 18 percent said it would not affect their vote at all. A quarter of the voters surveyed said they were not sure how passage of the civil unions bill would influence their choice in the governor's race.


http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/limitedfallout.html

The bottom line is that Dean ONLy gave support when it was safe or when he feels he can benefit from that support, and remains silent until he is certain of the political fallout.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. You can also ignore the main point by focusing on a small detail

:eyes:

[dsc]

59. No it isn't a small detail

it is his whole case. His claim is that it was a done deal without Dean's input and before Dean became governor. The fact is that it wasn't a done deal. It was passed in one house in 91. They were taking testimony as late as April of 92. Supporters of the bill were beginning for people to call their reps and Senators in April of 92, Those aren't done for done deals. Then, OITM, not Dean but OITM, gives Dean credit for helping to pass that bill.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. The point is that Dean is no advocate for gays.

He's just a politician with his finger in the wind.

[dsc]

63. Oh really

then I am sure you can site the numerous polls that showed civil unions with a huge majority in Vermont. Oh wait, no you can't they don't exist. Maybe he imagined the people calling him faggot and threatening to shoot him. Or maybe you just don't know your rear from a hole in the ground on this. There are zero governors with his record. His state was the seventh with a civil rights bill for gays (which Vermnot gays say he helped pass and he definately signed), he appointed the first openly gay Vermont House member, and gave benefits to gay state employees. And of course there is civil unions. You can't name a governer with even an equal record because one doesn't exist. Only Grey Davis comes close and he endorsed California's DOMA, which BTW Dean publicly opposed in Vermont even as part of a deal to get civil unions.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. Did Dean advocate for civil unions? No.

[dsc]

66. Yes he did

The very day Baker came down, within hours, and as posted here not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, but so many times I have literally lost count, he advocated for civil unions.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. What you call advocacy -- LOL

"Had I to do all over again I would have signed it publicly" -- I guess he read some new polls.

OITM: When you finally announced your position, you said that gay marriage made you “uncomfortable like everyone else.” Can you clarify what you meant by that and specifically what about gay marriage makes you uncomfortable?

Dean: The truth is that it is the politics that made me uncomfortable. (Personally) I’m sure that I have the same hang-ups that lots of people have on the issue.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm

Dean's No Opinion, No Answer is Wrong Answer
by Dean Corren

The interview with Howard Dean {OITM June, 1998} let him off too easily. Not having an opinion on whether lesbians and gays should have equal civil rights, marriage or otherwise, is an opinion - a very low one.

Using the courts as a dodge is unacceptable. The courts have their job to do, executive and legislative elected officials have theirs. Basic political responsibility should require a clear position. Actual leadership would require much, much more.

He puts a chummier face on it, but morally, Howard Dean's position (especially to the degree expressed by his Attorney General's brief which could only be described as homophobic) is no different from his opponents'. While their positions might be summed up as, "We're not sure we like you enough to afford you the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else in our civil society," the Governor's position is "I'm not sure you're worth the price to my re-election campaign."

<snip>

Clearly, Dean is either still waiting for the polling data to tell him his position, or he's seen it, and knows you wouldn't like it. But on an issue of fundamental civil rights, shouldn't "no position" or "secret position" be just as bad as the wrong position? The Governor is either with the GLBT community or he's against it. So far, he sure isn't with it.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul98/deanoped.htm

Advocacy?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. “It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.”
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm

It doesn't make me uncomfortable. How about you?

[Nicholas_J]

46. The article states it passed in 1991

ANd it did...

The only thing that held up its being finalized was Howard Dean himself. Not purposefully, but because Snelling died on August 14th of that year, and Dean did little but talk to the Vermont Legislature about the deficit, and did nothing about the Civil Union Act that had been passed. So it sat and waited until Dean was ready to discuss other issues.

Another interesting aside. The year that Dean said that he would not support a separate Gay Civil Rights bill, Richard Snelling who was running for the Senate said that he:

U.S. Senate Race: Richard Snelling stated that he supports the concept of a federal civil rights bill to protect gay people. He would agree to co-sponsor and vote for such a bill (subject to approval of specific wording). He would support increased funding for AIDS education and research. He would support changes in the immigration law which currently excludes lesbians and gay men. And he would assign a staff person to act as liaison to the lesbian/gay community in Vermont.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1986/11nov1986/

My statement has no contradictions. It passed in 1991. Everyone was waiting for Dean. This bill had massive support in 1991, and was ready to be sent on to the governor for signing. Only he died, and theyn everyone had to sit and wait for Dean. Then the legislatuive session ended, so they had to re-present the bill and send it on to Dean to sign.

All of the lobbying was done by a Bill Lippert, he got a majority of both houses of the legislature to support it incliding a very large number of moderate republicnas,and then Dean decides to jump in at the last minute, state that he supports it, and then take the credit from the gay man who spent the better part of a decade trying to get increasing support for it.Which is also why you do not see one word on Samara's site home page that mentions Howard Dean. In 1994 he served in the House of Representatives and it was he who tried to get Dean to openly state his thoughts on the Baker v. State case

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. That's a reference to his other positions i.e: taxes, deregulation, etc...

for lack of a better word he's BushLite.

[dsc]

29. That isn't what you said and you know it

there is not one word about tax policy, deregualtion, or anything but gay rights in this thread. So again, put up here. You claimed him to be just like Bush. Let me put it this way, do you feel there is no difference between Bush and Dean on this issue or do you simply not give a damn about this issue?

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Bush* has appointed at least two openly gay men, one to head up

AIDS poicy, one as Ambassador to Romania. I think there have been more, but a quick search turned up these two, and you only asked for one openly gay person appointed by Bush* or at least you only say Dean appointed one openly gay person.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4139

This is from People for the American Way:

Bush administration taps openly gay man to lead AIDS office

A coalition of right-wing groups led by the Family Research Council protested the Bush administration’s appointment of an openly gay man to head the White House Office of National AIDS Policy. Scott Evertz has political ties to former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, now Health and Human Services Secretary. Evertz had served as president of the Wisconsin chapter of Log Cabin Republicans and was one of the dozen gay Republicans who met with then-Governor Bush in the midst of his election campaign.

http://www.lcr.org/timeline.asp

This is from Log Cabin Republicans:

PT 18: Secretary of State Colin Powell swears in openly gay Michael Guest as Ambassador to Romania.

At the ceremony, Powell also acknowledges Guest’s partner, who moves with Guest to their posting in Bucharest, the first time the same-sex partner of a U.S. ambassador has officially resided at a post.

[dsc]

31. I meant as govenor

but in fairness I should have specificly said that.

[DemBones DemBones]

39. In fairness you might want to go to the site for Samara Foundation,

which is a Vermont organization supporting LGBT interests that was co-founded by the one openly gay person Dean appointed, a psychologist whose first name is Bill and last name is something like Hibbert. I've read several of Bill's writings on that site and elsewhere and seen not one mention of Howard Dean. Not one mention in his speech to Vermont legislators just before the vote on civil unions, not one mention in later writings. That seems curious to me. Is it possible Dean is popular with the folks at OITM but not with all LGBT Vermonters? If so, isn't it possible that OITM is giving Dean credit he doesn't deserve? We should try to determine the real story, I think.

Your assertion (in an earlier post above) that you trust the word of gays more than of straights is troubling, especially as you said it in an earlier thread, too, defending the openly gay Dean campaign worker who was asked to leave a Gephardt rally because he was disruptive. I think you would protest if a straight person said they trusted straights more than gays. I think it's always a mistake to trust members of one group more than another, unless the groups are small and share radical beliefs; e.g., nobody should trust members of Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" "church."

As a teacher, I'm sure you've had the opportunity to observe both good and bad behavior, including truthfulness and lying, from both sexes and from all races/ ethnicities you've taught. You may not have had any openly gay students in teaching high school -- I didn't when I taught high school. But I've taught openly gay students in college and they are as good and as bad as straight students.

[dsc]

40. I don't trust people who don't quote completely

IF you note I said gay Vermonters. Both of these are relevant. But you left that out. I wonder why? Well, really I don't. You left it out to try to smear me as an anti straight bigot. Then, you did it again with the other quote. I was comparing a gay Dean staffer to reporters working for FOX and an English publication that endorsed Bush. Again, you left that out. Funny, the story you like is I am an anti stright bigot. The fact you had to slice and dice my quotes to tell it says a lot. Not about me but about you.

[DemBones DemBones]

44. I didn't quote you at all, I paraphrased you, so it is hardly a "fact"

that I sliced and diced your quotes. Here's what you said in this thread:

"That I provided you, via Vermont's LGBT paper of record are facts. Not stories I like but honest facts. Ask yourself who knows what they are talking about here. LGBT Vermonters or straights who have never lived in or been in Vermont. I know who I believe. As a teen would say. Duh."

You seem to be making an assumption that anyone critical of Dean's record is straight and has never lived in Vermont. Ironically, you addressed this to Nicholas, who has lived in Vermont. In the thread about the gay Dean staffer, you assume that the reporters who said he was disruptive are all straight.

You did, in fact, create a "gay vs. straight" situation in two instances and say "I know who I believe." I think it's unfortunate that you feel that way, but I wasn't suggesting that you're a bigot.

But about the rest of my earlier post, the part you don't address . . .

What about Samsara? That's an LGBT organization in Vermont that doesn't seem to mention Howard Dean on its website. If Dean is the hero to LGBT Vermonters that you seem to suggest, why isn't he mentioned there? Are there differences of opinion about Dean in Vermont's LGBT community? What makes OITM "Vermont's LGBT paper of record" (a quote from you)?

[dsc]

61. OITM calls itself

the Vermont LGBT paper of record so take it up with them. You can use the link I provided (they say this in the banner so I presume you didn't bother before) and go to contact them. My assumption is that they may well be the only LGBT paper in Vermont (my much larger area both in pop terms and geographicaly has only one).

The poster in question has made several basic mistakes about how Vermont is run. If he did live there he shows no evidence of having paid a lick of attention to what was going on when he did. He claimed that Governer Dean personaly held a woman in contempt of court, he claimed that Vermont had the death penalty under Dean to name two. Both of those are false and to be blunt embarassingly so.

Third, in both cases I put in and you left out, other reasons I gave for believing the people I was believing and not the people I wasn't. Call it a quote or call it a paraphrase no matter what name it goes by it was nothing short of smearing me. But for the record, I do think gay people know more about this than straights do. We pay more attention to this issue, we are more invested in this issue, and again this particular poster has both made basic errors and has suspect thoughts about gays.

Your smears not withstanding I stand behind my comments. In a contest between gays in Vermont and that poster I choose the gays in Vermont.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. Does gay marriage make you uncomfortable? It makes Dean uncomfortable.

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.”
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm

[Nicholas_J]

49. it all boils down to one statement

No matter what anyon tries to say about Dean,

When considering Dean and Kerry, there has been one candidite who committed to writing a statement that said he would not support a Gay civil rights bill....

It was not John Kerry.


When considering Dean and Kerry, there was one candiidate who maintained long silences about issues in the public arena that were of critical importance to gays, while another democratic party executive officer did speak openly in support of that issue.

Doug Racine spoke of his support for the gay side in Baker v State while it was still before the courts.

Howard Dean refused to.

Then considering Dean and Kerry, there is one person who was required to sign and given ONE YEAR by the supreme court to pass legislation of some kind that gove gays the right to civil unions. They offered only two alternatives, parallel unions or direct alteration of the marriage laws to create a blind status in sexual preference for marriage. During the time that only the marriage law existed and was before the judicial comittee howard Dean clarified his prior statement about being uncomfortable with gay marriage to one of "I am against gay marriage". The the Judicial Comittee abandoned the marriage act, adn began to pick it apart to create a lesser set of rights known as civil unions. Howard Dean was thus the father of the separate but equal solution.

This is reflected by the fact thatduring the campaign of 2000, Howard Dena almost lost the election.

Polls from Prior to Deans passage of the Civil Union Act shoe Anthony Pollina at 3 percent in Vermont Polls for Governor, and Howard Dean at 49 percent or lower, too low to win in Vermont, and requiring that the legislature decide by secret vote. But that is not the complete story. In an OITM Interiew, in June, Dean begins fear mongering among gays, stating that they have more to fear by supporting Anthony Pollina, who was supported by many gays in Vermont at this time, than from Ruth Dywer, the Republican opposition.

Dean scared enough gays into voting for him again, bringing the final election results to 50.5 percent.

But the critical issue is how well Pollina did. He scored 10 percent of the vote, most of it from gays who opposed civil unions and wanted the first marriage act, which was authored primarily by Vermonts only Openly gay legisltor at that time.

In 2002, Pollinas support by gays was even more startling, because they caused a rise in his eletion results for Lt Governor to 25 percent of the vote.

From what I here from Progressive circle, (I contribute to Vermonts Progressive Party, though I do not live there, and email its members regularly). A large number of gays are hoping that Pollina will DO what Dean did not.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. I guess that proves you can be as anti-gay as Bush and still

play lip service to the idea of gay rights.

Let that be a lesson to us.

[dsc]

41. Tell me when he paid lip service

go ahead I am waiting. Bush didn't promise anything to gays. I should know I followed the campaign.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. By appointing those two.

I can't believe I had to explain this.

[dsc]

52. paying lip service involves speech

not appointments. Hence the words lip service. So again please site a spoken or written promise to gays.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. Semantics. BUSH is anti-gay. We all know that.

And these two apppointments were his way of trying to appear otherwise.

:eyes:

[helleborient]

50. I certainly hope Kerry's support of gays is better than his supporters...

What a way to bring me back to posting...to confront the ridiculously disgusting attitudes toward gays from a supporter of his...

To quote post 13

"I do find it amusing that many gays openely attack the catholic church and the pope, when the actual attitude towards gay in the Catholic Church on the whole is rather relaxes except for a few nutcases like Santorum"

Further up in that post:

"The Catholic Church teaches that it is not a sin to have a homosexual orientation. But the Church also says the proper role of sexuality is between a man and a woman, and calls homosexuality "intrinsically disordered." This has alienated many gay Catholics."


I find it inherently disgusting that someone posting is on one hand claiming support of "gay rights" but on the other hand finding it amusing that people attack an organization that claims it can define for them how they express their sexuality...even in their own bed in their own home.

Then goes on to make up arguments that border on saying pedophilia in the church is about homosexuality. You may want to start here to look at the news reports of abuse of women by priests, and the reasons why it goes under-reported but has been claimed on NPR that the abuse of women may be as high as 50% of the abuse that goes on.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/972/context/archive

I'm sorry, but with the attitudes stated above, there is absolutely no way you can be a reliable reporter of any candidates support of the gay community...true support for the GLBT community does not involve being amused by their opposition to an organization which seeks to oppress them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. What about the actual subject of the thread?

Howard Dean - Lt Governor of Vt. 1986:

Candidates respond to OITM survey


In early September, OITM sent out questionnaires to candidates for statewide office in Vermont on issues of particular concern to lesbians and gay men. These candidates were informed that the results would be published in our newspaper and that failure to respond would also be noted. What follows are the results of this survey.


Lieutenant Governor: Howard Dean would not support a civil rights bill "aimed specifically at any given group" but he would include lesbian/gay civil rights protection in a broader bill. He did support the HTLV-III anti-discrimination bill sponsored by Micque Glitmen last year. He would support state funding for education and services to people with AIDS and people in high-risk groups. He would support re-instituting the State Human Rights Commission. He was ambivalent about appointing a liaison simply because he wasn't sure if it was necessary because of numerous "friends and supporters" in the gay community.


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1986/11nov1986/


Senator John Kerry - 1985:

Kerry says his record over the years on a range of issues sets him apart from other candidates. In 1985, he authored the Senate version of the gay civil rights bill — a measure that, if passed, would have covered discrimination in employment, housing and credit. His average score on the Human Rights Campaign's congressional scorecard, begun in the 101st Congress, is 96 percent — with a perfect score for the last four congresses.

http://www.hrc.org/publications/hrcq/hrcq03sp/kerry.asp

A number of progressive articles indicate that while the case that resulted in the Civil Union act which started in 1996 and was not finally settled until December of 1999, Howard Denacremained mute about support for the rights of gays to that union, He would not take a stand on this critical case:

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867