Gubernatorial Hopeful Bill Meub Discusses GLBT Issues

by Paul Olsen

If Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bill Meub defeats Ruth Dwyer in the GOP primary, he is convinced he can beat incumbent Gov. Howard Dean in November. In an interview with Out in the Mountains, Meub characterized himself as a fiscal conservative who, unlike his primary opponent, is moderate on social issues.

Meub graduated from both Lehigh University and Vermont Law School, and has worked as an attorney since 1978. He’s a member of the Vermont Business Roundtable and the Republican City and County Committees. In 1998 ,the American Library Association awarded him the John Philip Immroth Memorial Award for “remarkable personal courage in resisting censorship” at the Rutland Free Library. Meub is married and has one child.

OITM: Why should gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Vermonters support your candidacy for Governor?

Meub: If they don’t support Howard Dean and they want some other choice, I’m the best choice for them. I’m confident enough to be a leader and to be Governor. I think I would have the best opportunity to defeat Howard Dean in November. People have described me as a very thoughtful, concerned person. I’ve tried to create a different impression of Republicans. There are many Republicans who care about people, care what happens in their lives, and respect people. That’s the position from which I come from. I’m not a reactionary.

OITM: As Governor, would you appoint openly gay men and lesbians to the Legislature, state commissions, and/or your Cabinet?

Meub: It would depend on the person that is most qualified. I don’t believe that I am prejudiced in one way or the other. Therefore, I would pick the person who is most qualified to serve the particular position.

OITM: In the state budget $12,000 has been provided to Outright Vermont for support services for gay and lesbian youth. As Governor, what would your position be on this funding?

Meub: I’m against that $12,000 expenditure. Most of the schools already provide what I think is very good support. I know we did in the Rutland City Schools. I think that is really where it belongs and funding private organizations to carry out something like that is not something that I would favor.

OITM: Had you been Governor, what would your position have been on legislation prohibiting sexual orientation based discrimination in housing, employment, credit and public accommodations?

Meub: I would been in favor of it. I don’t believe that they should be discriminated against. I don’t have a problem with that.

OITM: As Governor, would you maintain a relationship with Vermont’s gay and lesbian community through an official liaison?

Meub: Why would I need an official liaison? I’m a person who likes to talk face to face to people. If they identify a person that you want to have as a representative and that’s the person that I’m supposed to talk to, then that’s fine.

OITM: How would you characterize the behavior of Vermont’s gay and lesbian community during the gay marriage debate?

Meub: I think that there were exemplary behaviors on both sides and I think that there were some examples of behavior that were not particularly exemplary. I have a hard time with that kind of broad brush. Since I was opposed to the bill that was passed I would not like to be painted with the same brush as people that I thought acted inappropriately in opposition. I thought that there were some very thoughtful positions in opposition to the bill that was crafted and I wouldn’t want to have any of the bad conduct thrown at me.

OITM: What role, if any, do you think homophobia played in the civil union debate?

Meub: Certainly it played some role. I think that the [legislative] leadership did a very good job at minimizing what was there and the debate itself focused on some legitimate issues.

OITM: You’ve called for changes to Vermont’s new civil union law. What are your concerns with the new law?

Meub: I believe that there are public policy reasons that gay and lesbian unions should be treated differently than heterosexual unions. I see a potential problem coming down the pike that deals with divorce. We require residency of one year before you are allowed to have a divorce. If no other states recognize what we’ve done and we are faced with issues of ‘how do you resolve them,’ I’m not sure that we ought to have a residency requirement. I think we ought to have a payment requirement that would pay for the system to take care of them. I can certainly see treating civil unions differently than I see treating marriages.

I know what all the statistics and numbers are for how men have abused women. I know that women have been killed. I know we have a significant problem in Vermont because of that. I don’t know the extent of the problem in the gay and lesbian community. I don’t know the impact it would have on the system that we currently have in place for our shelters. I might see a need to have something different. Therefore I would not want to keep the two identical which is how the law is written.

When I spoke with members of the gay and lesbian community even before the Supreme Court [Baker] decision came down I said that I felt that trying to have it identical to marriage was not something that I felt comfortable with. I felt that we needed to have a traditional marriage because the heterosexual community has its need to keep itself distinguished and different and that is important to them. Out of respect, I thought that having two systems was the correct thing to do.

OITM: Don’t you think the civil union bill does that?

Meub: I don’t believe the civil union bill has two separate systems. When it starts off saying you have all the benefits and obligations of marriage, all it has is a civil union name but the way it is written it is identical to marriage. I don’t see that there is any difference.

OITM: Except for the 1,049 federal benefits that the law does not include.

Meub: That is not something that the state can control. The state has no way to affect those particular issues. Within the limits of its power, it made it identical to marriage. I believe that the Legislature could say here are public policy reasons for why we are distinguishing between the two and act accordingly. The way it is linked together if you give a benefit to married couples it automatically flows to civil unions. I’m not sure that is appropriate.

OITM: Specifically, which benefits do you think that committed gay and lesbian couples should not be entitled to?

Meub: The only one that I was concerned about had to do with spousal abuse and the cost. I’d want to look at some numbers. I’d want to take a look at the list. There were two or three that I’d want to get more information. I’d want to know what the financial costs were and why the benefits were necessary.

OITM: What is your position on the medical use of marijuana by people living with HIV/AIDS?

Meub: I know that there are some medical reasons why marijuana is used for some medical treatment and in those cases I think a prescription ought to be written for it and it should be used. I don’t know its connection in the AIDS treatment program. If there were another drug that works more effectively then I would not be in favor of it. If there were a good medical reason for it, I am not opposed to use of marijuana as a medical treatment when physicians believe it is appropriate to use it.

OITM: Would you support Vermont’s federal “presumed eligibility” application that would make Vermonters living with HIV automatically eligible for Medicaid?

Meub: I cannot give an answer to that. I’d need to have more information and more data. I’d need to know what the costs were. There’s a lot more information that I would need to know before I could give an answer to that.

OITM: Do you have any final message to Vermont’s gay community?

Meub: They ought to feel comfortable with who I am and they shouldn’t be afraid of me. Typically, the gay and lesbian community is not seen as a Republican constituency. But to the extent that there are Republicans within the gay and lesbian community, then in my mind there shouldn’t be any choice between who they should choose.