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.htmstart 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.htmdtart 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. 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
