Dean's gay rights record in the words of Vermont gay and lesbains

[dsc]

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.

[indigo32]

1. Thanks DSC

eom

[Padraig18]

2. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[tsipple]

3. Nobody Will Ever Forget Dean's Historic Contribution

He certainly could have taken the easy road, and he didn't. He done good.

[davidinalameda]

14. he took the easiest road

he knew that the state supreme court was legalize civil unions no matter what the legislature did

he pushed for the lesser--he could have pushed for true marriage but he didn't

that is one reason I would never support him in a primary

[dsc]

15. I would like you to answer three questions for me

1) If Dean was right, and the choice was Civil Unions or nothing, you would have preferred nothing? I for one would not have.

2) Can you site any specific right that marriage would have given those Vermonters that civil unions didn't (remember DOMA)

3) for whom are you voting?

[Padraig18]

4. Kick

[Nicholas_J]

5. Again, Deans has a record of ambigity

And waiting until he is sure of support before making statements:

Deans FIRST political statement about legislation supporting gay civil rights was:

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/

Essentially, Dean is saying he did not want to support a SEPARATE bill that would give gay civil rights, but wanted to include sexual prefernce in a broader civil rights bill. Unfortunately no such bill was before the Vermont Legislature or suggested by Dean as the Lt Governor, whose primary roll is to act as President of the Vermont Senate.

Over the years between 1986 when Dean made his comments about NOT SUPPORTING a separate gay civil rights bill, nothing was done about the broader bill Dean suggested. The Gay Civil Rights bill was the only game in town.

A year prior to Deans statement about NOT supporting the gay civil rights bill, anthother candidate authored one and presented it to the U.S. Senate:

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





Again there is a looming question of Deans silence on the Vermont court case that ended up determining that preventing gays from marriage was unconsitutional. The argument that the Vt Supreme Court coud have changed the Vt Constitution between 1975 and 1999 is irrelevant, and once the Supremem Court stated that the it was "unconstitutional to deny gays rights under the Vermont Constitution, any attempt to change the constitution would from that point on regarding gay rights itself was unconstitutional. It is not legal to change the constitution in order to get around this type of court decision.

On December 20th 1999, Dean made this statement:

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

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

Deam supporters lke to get the rest of this statement to indicate that this is taken out of context, but lets fast forward to a month or so later, after a piece of legislation regarding the Vermont Supreme Court Decision was made:

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

At the time OITM is pointing out Denas initial ambiguity and then his clarification that he was against gay marriage:



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


Now lets get back to the piece of legislation I mentioned above...

No it was not the piece of legislation that became the Civil Union Law, but a piece of legislation that was as widely supported as the Civil Legislation Act - H694

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

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

Which was written and introduced three weeks after the Baker v. State decision. Before the civil union legislation. After the introduction of H694, Dean states clearly he is against gay marriage, indicating he is against this act.


The overall picture is someone who only cautiously supports gay rights.

First, his statment about not supporting the Gay Civil Rights Bill in 1986, and only copming to support in in 1992, at the point at which it had massive support in the Vermont Legislature and at which passage was completely guaranteed by the legislature. Dean is silent as Lt Governor between 1986 and 1991 when:

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

While Dean eventually signs the legisation in 1992, it was a done deal at the closing of the 1991 session.

Now lets look at the Baker v. State beahvior on Deans part.

There is absolutely NOTHING that legally binds the Governor or President from stating their position on ANYTHING before the courts.

As a matter of fact, other members of Deans government DID make statements while the case was before the courts:

Howard Dean, the governor, has declined to state a position on same-sex marriages, saying he was awaiting the court's decision. But Douglas Racine, the lieutenant-governor, and Michael Obuchowski, the House Speaker, have said they favour same-sex marriages.

http://www.familylawcentre.com/samesexarticles.html#7


Most presidents and Governors on the contrary, are quite vocal about their stance on issues before the high courts, as Bush was regarding Affirmative Action Programs in Colleges and other presidents have been on other issues before the courts.

For example while a case regarding gun law was before the U.S. Supreme Court, both Clinton and Janet Reno were vociferous in their opinions whilr the case was in the Courts:


Tremendous Victory for the Second Amendment


On Oct. 16 the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an 84-page decision that clearly stated that the Second Amendment declaration that the “People’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says—the right of individual Americans. The decision states clearly that the Second Amendment was not meant to convey the right to bear arms to organized military only, as anti-gun groups and numerous members of Congress have tried to maintain for decades.



The court’s chief judge, William Garwood, noting how the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno had steadfastly maintained that the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Miller, a decision often cited by Clintonites and other anti-gunners, mandated the court’s rejection of the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

“We disagree,” Judge Garwood wrote, stating the Miller decision did not resolve the individual versus collective right issue, but “to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter, it cuts against” the Clinton-Reno position.


http://www.americanfreepress.net/Attack_on_Constitution/Tremendous_Victory_for_the_Sec/tremendous_victory_for_the_sec.html

While this case was before the courts, Clinton was vocal in his opinion on the issue. There was absolutely nothing to prevent Howard Dean from commenting on one side or the other the issue of before the courts. As other elected official in the Vermont Legislature. before the issue was decided in the courts. Dean had every opportunity and every right to state whih side of the issue he supported...

DID HE?

The Vermont Gay Civil Rights Act was repeatedly brought before the Vermont Legislature between 1986 when Dean said he opposed such legislation, and 1992, when he asked that it be supported, after the fact that it already had overwhelming support, from both Democrats and Republicans and Progressives.

There are a number of chinks in Deans record on supporting gays.

His several silences should speak very loudly to those who have any interest in gay right, gays especially.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas_J]

8. Again

Where was Dean between 1986 and 1992.

The bill was largely passed by the leglislature in 1992, but languished many years in limbo. It agai was not Deans support that did this as the legislture had enough support to pass the bill before Dean became governor.

Again, this does not explain Deans silence on major gay rights issues. While running for Lt Governor he oppposed any such special legislation dealing with gay civil rights, and as noted, there is nothing prohibiting a Lt Governor from giving support or non support to a piece of legislation or a case before the courts while it is in the courts.

Lt Governor Doug Racines support of the idea of Civil Unions while i was still before the courts beears this fact out.

Governor Deans record on civil rights for gays is good, no one is contesting that. It simply is not sterling adn there are other candidates who's records and history contain no such ambiguities and changes of stance or silences on gay civil rights as appear in Deans record.

Kerry's record of actively supprting gay rights has been far more consistant, with no record of his opposing at any time legislation that is specifically written, and specifically designed to directly deal with gay rights and gay rights alone.

Again while Dean was silent on Baker v. State, Kerry was calling for a formal, in depth investigation through external observers to the record of the military on abuses of gays in the military demanding and forcing investigation into the records of those who chose to avoid Clintons "dont ask, dont tell policy" to make sure that the military was not actively seeking out gays in order to discharge them from service. As a matter of fact, It was Kerry who authored the letterto the Joint Chiefs and which he got signed by a considerable number of Senators telling them to knock it off or they would launch the investigation that they inevitably had to start.



As a matter of fact, the GLBT does not place Dean at the forefront of Gay and Lesbian right, but that honor they give to Carol Mosely Braun


The Kerry Doctrine: The Separation of Church and Morality
8/14/2003
Albert Mohler


Sen. John Kerry just told the Pope to back off. One of the most significant signs of America's increasingly secularized public culture is the fact that politicians no longer fear the censure of their own churches. In fact, some wear the outrage of the faithful as a mark of honor.

This past July, the Vatican released a bold statement calling on Catholic legislators and politicians to oppose homosexual marriage as a matter of Catholic duty The statement bears papal authority and is official church teaching. It not only instructs Catholic politicians to oppose homosexual marriage, but also provides a moral argument as foundation: "Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good."

Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat running for his party's 2004 presidential nomination, rushed to distance himself from the Vatican statement. Kerry is Catholic, a matter of no little consequence in Massachusetts politics. But the Kerry campaign quickly insisted that the candidate's Catholicism would have nothing to do with his political decisions.

"John Kerry believes deeply in separation of church and state and does not accept edicts from any religious leaders," retorted Kelly Benander, a spokeswoman for the senator. Obviously not. Kerry supports abortion, homosexual rights legislation, and the legal recognition of homosexual unions.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/1214693.html?view=print

In discussing the issue of homosexual marriage while he states he is against it, he also makes a rather pointed comment to civil unions opening the way to such a possibility in the future:

Kerry boasted of his longstanding support of homosexual issues, saying he supported homosexual-friendly legislation "before Ellen DeGeneres, before Will and Grace, before anyone knew who Melissa Etheridge was."

Saying he supports a federal law enacting homosexual civil unions, Kerry said he opposes homosexual "marriage" because of "how I view the world culturally, historically, religiously." He added that civil unions would grant homosexuals all the rights of marriage.

Pressed by Donaldson for reasons why he doesn't support homosexual "marriage," Kerry said that "we need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are." He added that it "may well be that if we achieve civil unions" and make progress like "we have progressed in the last fifteen years" then there may be "a different understanding of it."

"But at this particular moment in time, I don't believe that exists," Kerry said, adding that he wants to work to pass other legislation, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.


http://www.sbclife.net/Articles/2003/09/SLA6.asp

Between Dean and Kerry, Dean has stated opposition to gay marriage, but has not made any comments indicating that that given time, this may change.

Kerry has.

It is a delicate issue, and a matter of a political balancing act, but so far, between Dean and Kerry, again Kerry has indicated an acceptance of something going further than the separate but equal status created by civil unions.

This would be moot if Dean had chosen to supprt the earlier H694 bill in Vemront, which had support to pass, rather than opting for Civil Unions due to the fact that at the time that H694 was written and presented, Dean stated he was opposed to gay marriage.Constitutional obigation to recognize, and require that other states recognize the laws that are held under states rights would make it necessary for both the federal government an all other states to recognize gay marriage, as the H694 stated that in Vermont marriage would not be subject to ANY standards based on sexual prefernce. The Vermont Civil Unions act cannot be subject to that constitutional obligation as the act itself states that it only pertains to the state of Vermont alone, and as a it establishes a parallel set of laws that apply to ONE group of citizens, and only applies to benefits in Vermont, Newither the federal government NO other states are obligated to recognize a Vermont Civil Union. Only and act which makes marriage blind to sexual prefernce can do that. At this point, DOMA become federally unconstitutional as it intrudes on states rights to define marriage laws.

As an aside, there is ample legal and judicial reasoning for declaring the Vermont Civil Union act on the one ground that it sets us a special set of rules for one group of people based on their particular sexual preference. Singling out gays then brings up another issue, which Mormons may be familiar with.. which is polygamy, and also creates problems with the concept of telling people that they must be married at all before they can decide that they wish the benefits that they have earned by working for and essentially belong to them can only be passed on to someone tey are married to.

This is occuring now in the case of Massachusetts trying to do what Vermont did and the major issue is that it may be determined in Massachusetts that Civil Unions are unconstitutional:


Margaret Marshall Is Having Troubles with Gay Marriage; Vermont's Decision Violated U.S. Constitution

By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick - July 27, 2003

Margaret Marshall is having trouble working out a consensus with her fellow judges on the Supreme Judicial Court on implementing gay marriage, in the opinion of many Massachusetts lawyers.

It's possible that Marshall is having trouble even getting a bare majority to vote with her. She'll be courting serious problems if she implements her plan with a 4-3 decision in her favor, particularly if the dissenters are contentious.

Even with a unanimous vote she may have problems, because many legal scholars in Massachusetts believe that the Vermont court's decree in 2000, which mandated civil unions or homosexual marriage, violated the U.S. Constitution. That's why proposals in our state Senate for domestic partnerships have included many different groups of people, not just homosexuals.

The homosexual activists are arguing in this state, as in Vermont, that it's not "fair" to give all the advantages of marriage to just heterosexual couples. They demand the same treatment. The problem is how can they be added as a group when so many other people are also demanding to be included, such as heterosexuals who want the benefits without the "burden" of marriage, groups of three or more lesbians who want to be married, bigamists who want many wives, polyamorists who desire group sex (they have over 200 websites promoting the idea) plus many others? It violates the U.S. Constitution to single out homosexual couples for special treatment.



http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/7_july/072703_mn_margaret_marshall_is_having_troubles_with_gay_marriage.shtml

Those in Vermont who designed H694 did so for that exact reason and they stated that an act that simply removed sexual preference from the marriage laws in Vermont, would prevent the possiblity of the Civil Unions Act being declred unconstitutional.

Deans selection of civil unions rather than marriage may contain the seeds to overturn Civil Unions entirely.

[dsc]

9. funny

gays and lesbians in vermont, the people who actually know, unlike you, disagree. Gee, wonder who I believe.

[KittyWampus]

10. Oh Yeah, Gays And Lesbians All Think Alike

And the opinion you cite here doesn't erase Dean's actual non-record of being an ACTIVE ADVOCATE for gay rights and civil unions utnil later in his career as politician.

It's great that he caught up to speed... but he is NOT in the same league as those politicians who've been on the front lines.

Better late than never.

Just wish you'd stop trying to make Dean's record seem more Progressive and Activist than it actually is.

[dsc]

12. He helped pass and signed

a gay rights bill in May of 92. He became in governor in August of 91. By my count that is 9 months into his term. Even the 'damning' questionaire shows that he supported an awful lot of gay issues. It is hardly damning.

[Nicholas_J]

11. Do they all...

Did they all:

Progressive Steve Hingtgen of Burlington reprimanded the committee in his remarks. Calling anything other than marriage was inadequate, he said domestic partnership would validate hate. “It institutionalizes the bigotry and affirmatively creates an apartheid system of family recognition in Vermont,” said Hingtgen...

Lippert, the legislature’s only openly gay rep, asked the group to beware the ulterior motives of people calling for a longer process.
“Please respect the deliberation we have done,” he said, “and know that some people won’t be swayed, no matter how much time we take.”

Meanwhile, the counting has started. The committee has indicated it will not send a bill to the floor unless the votes are there to pass it. As of press time, the unofficial count was about a dozen short of the 76 needed to pass the House, with many legislators still undecided.

Supporters of the bill, including the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force and Action Committee, are making sure their presence is felt at the Statehouse.


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

Lippert was arguing for the bill in before the Judiciary committee, which was H694, not the Civil Unions Act that resulted as the rejection of the gay marriage act. Dean again, at this time voiced his statement that he did not support gay marriage, clearly indicating his prefernce for a lesser solution.

Other gays in Vermont have also stated opposition to the act itself for the same reasons:

Average gays writing 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


UMass Economist Says Vermont's "Civil Union" Law Retains a Separate-but-Equal Approach for Gay Couples

"Vermont's creation of 'civil unions' addresses many of the economic disadvantages faced by same-sex couples," Badgett says. "Those couples and their children will now have equal access to the state-provided legal and economic framework supporting Vermont's families."

But while same-sex couples in civil unions will be closer to parity with married couples than they are in any other state, this separate-but-equal approach leaves the status of same-sex couples murky with respect to recognition by employers, insurance companies, and other states, Badgett says. "Furthermore, federal law excludes same-sex couples from access to the immigration, taxation, and social security benefits given to married couples," she says.

Badgett is an assistant professor of economics at UMass who focuses her research on race, gender, and sexual orientation in the labor market. She also is president of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, a non-profit think tank based in Washington, D.C.

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/archive/2000/042600civilunion.html



Marriage Law


2000: On December 20, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. State that same-sex couples can no longer be denied full and equal protections, benefits, and responsibilities under the law. The Court gave the legislature first crack at deciding how to provide equality, while retaining jurisdiction over the case to assess what the legislature does in the session beginning Jan. 2000. The Court left open the question whether a "separate but equal" approach would satisfy the constitution's command of equality, or whether only ending discrimination in marriage itself would suffice.
After extensive hearings, the House and Senate enacted a new marital status, called "civil unions," which provides virtually all the state-sponsored protections, responsibilities, and benefits afforded through civil marriage. Gov. Howard Dean signed the act into law on April 26, and it takes effect on July 1.
H 479: Anti-marriage measure carried over from last year.


http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/states/record?record=45

This article also indicates that in Vermont there was literally NO chance of anything such as amending the constitution to pass, as the Vermont Legislature had defeated attempts to do just that as anti-gay legislators tried to beat the Supreme Court to the punch, by blocking H479 Anti gay Marriage bill in 1999, H182 Anti Gay Marriage Bill in 1998, and Another H182 Anti gay Marriage Act in 1997, in anticipation of the Baker v. State cases started in 1996.

It just wasnt going to happen in Vermont.

Another article from OITM:


A Call for Equality. Utilizing our diversity as a society is the greatest challenge we face today. Like Martin Luther King Jr., “I have a dream,” and in my dream, all people can live with the same rights and privileges, regardless of their sexual orientation. Same-sex marriage is symbolic of the right to live a life of dignity and equality. I am very excited that marriage is the goal the Canadians sought rather than a “you can sit in the back seat” law such as civil unions. As gay, bisexual and lesbian citizens, we deserve full equality, not “separate but equal.” Civil unions are a legal step in the right direction, but their acceptance risks complacence and settling for less. We deserve more. In a free society, people of all sexual orientations should have the right to marry, with all rights and responsibilities and the full recognition of the federal government.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/2003/08aug2003/views01_price.htm

Marriage and partnership won't ever be the same.
By JACK HOFFMAN Vermont Press Bureau

When the Vermont Supreme Court handed down its ruling last month on same-sex marriage, Gov. Howard Dean went through some semantic contortions to defend his support for the creation of domestic partnerships. Even though domestic partnerships would ostensibly have all the legal rights and obligations of marriage, critics described such a system as "separate but equal." Dean was evidently uncomfortable with the allusion to the illegal system of racial segregation in the South. He called domestic partnerships "different but equal."

Now from the testimony presented last week in the House Judiciary Committee, from people on all sides of the issue, we have a little clearer picture of the differences between these two approaches. To paraphrase George Orwell, same-sex marriage would be more equal than domestic partnership.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/opjan16.html

Civil Unions. There will be much debate on this issue. The current law creates some constitutional problems over interstate law, which could surface eventually in the US Supreme Court. Though a civil rights law, it seems to support the "doctrine of separate but equal," a kind of Jim Crow in reverse.

In the end, however, House members who would like to undo this law will see their efforts fail, if not in the House itself, then certainly in the Senate. They also run the risk of being one-issue candidates, who will have a hard time justifying their positions to voters in just two short years.

http://www.vtbusinessmagazine.com/jan2001.htm

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled in December 1999 that excluding same-sex couples violated their rights under the state’s constitution. But rather than striking down the law, the court gave the state legislature one year to find some remedy for the inequity. The legislature and then-Gov. Howard Dean, now a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, responded by adopting “civil union” legislation that created “separate but equal” legal recognition for gay couples.

Opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts say that if the court legalizes same-sex marriage, thousands of gay and lesbian couples from other states will flock to Massachusetts to get married. Then, they will return to their home state, where their marriages may not be acknowledged, creating a tidal wave of lawsuits.

http://www.lezbeout.com/gaymarriagerulingdue.htm

Also the idea of separate but equal civil unions was utterly rejected in Canada, for exactly the same reasons that the Gay Marriage Act in Vermont was supported bty many gays as opposed to civil unions:


Paul Martin and Chretien Agree: Yes to Gay 'Marriage', No Civil Unions Strategy and No Use of Notwithstanding Clause
North Bay, Ontario, August 19, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In its report today on the Liberal caucus meeting in North Bay, Ontario, the Globe and Mail noted the response of upcoming leader Paul Martin to the same-sex 'marriage' issue.


http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030819.wsame0819_2a/BNStory/Nationa l/


Cauchon Says 'Equality' Demands Homosexual Marriage, Not Civil Unions
MONTREAL, August 19, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Justice Minister Martin Cauchon told a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) on Monday that "equality" under the Charter demands full marriage rights for homosexuals, not some "lesser" status such as civil unions.

"Clearly we must do better than almost equal," Cauchon said. "Gays and lesbians in Canada have long-term relationships. They belong to our families and in some cases raise children. They contribute to our communities and pay taxes. This government believes they should also have access to marriage. Anything less is discrimination."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/08/18/163368-cp.html


"The answer to that question is no. Marriage, under any interpretation of American constitutional law, is among the most basic civil rights. "Separate but equal" was a failed and pernicious policy with regard to race; it will be a failed and pernicious policy with regard to sexual orientation. The many advances of recent years -- the "domestic partnership" laws passed in many cities and states, the generous package of benefits finally granted in Hawaii, the breakthrough last week in Vermont -- should not be thrown out.

But neither can they be accepted as a solution, as some straight liberals and gay pragmatists seem to want. In fact, these half-measures, far from undermining the case for complete equality, only sharpen it. For there are no arguments for civil union that do not apply equally to marriage. To endorse one but not the other, to concede the substance of the matter while withholding the name and form of the relationship, is to engage in an act of pure stigmatization. It risks not only perpetuating public discrimination against a group of citizens but adding to the cultural balkanization that already plagues American public life.

http://www.gayheroes.com/vermont.htm


Not all gays agree with Deans solution. A number seem to be irritaated about it, and many beoelve it is a concept untimately doomed to failure.

[mmonk]

7. I think Dean did good

with the civil union situation under enormous pressure. The fact he did it and is in the race helps keep civil unions out front as an issue to address.

[Padraig18]

13. Kick