Letters to the Editor
Out in the Mountains welcomes your letters. Although we will withhold names from printing upon request, the letter must be accompanied by a verifiable name and address in order to be considered for publication. We try to print every letter we receive, but reserve the right to edit for space and clarity. Letters are also subject to the editorial policy stated in the masthead.
VCU grateful
We just want to thank the hundreds of volunteers who worked long and hard, day and night, over the past months to protect our civil union law in the November election. Thanks to everyone’s hard work, most Vermonters expressed support for the law at the polls, and over 60 percent voted for pro-civil union gubernatorial candidates. It’s clear that, regardless of how folks feel about civil unions, a strong majority of Vermonters are ready to move on to other issues and don’t want to see our legislature spend another session bogged down in this divisive issue.
It’s dangerous to single out individuals for special thanks, because so many folks went above and beyond, but we’d like to acknowledge one particularly special person. Since June, Jakki Flanagan has worked night and day, without weekends or vacations, with unflagging intensity and good humor, to coordinate our statewide grassroots work. Our community owes a special debt of gratitude to Jakki for her passion, commitment, and competence. Thanks, Jakki!
Beth Robinson
Susan Murray
Vermonters for Civil Unions
*****
Biological argument for marriage
By current definitions of gender and orientation, I am considered a heterosexual male. As such, I consider it very much a matter of self-interest to support, amongst other common civil rights, the right of Gays and Lesbians to engage in civil marriage. I support this right because I know that the contrary voices are of those who would presume to define for others who and what they may be. There is no right that is more important to me than the right to define for myself who and what I am, and I know that I place that right in jeopardy when I stand by and watch as the right of others to self-definition is called in question.
In this regard I would like to suggest that an important line of argument, which I hope will be addressed sooner or later, was missed by the plaintiffs in Baker vs State of Vermont. It seems to me that the principal point of difference between the minority opinion, which advocated the allowance of same-sex marriages under the current marriage statutes, and the majority opinion, which stipulated that a “separate but equal” form of civil union would satisfy Constitutional requirements, was whether or not the definition of marriage as a legal union between “one man and one woman” constituted sexual discrimination. The majority held that since anyone, whether male or female, may participate in marriage, so long as they are willing to conform to the statutory requirement to marry someone of the “opposite sex,” the current statutes cannot be construed as discriminating on the basis of sex.
This line of reasoning, however, depends on an assumption so basic to the beliefs of our society that we do not ordinarily think to question it, yet which is shown to be false by the the basic facts of human reproductive and developemental biology as cited in any good basic textbook on the subject. This assumption is that we can, by a set of clear, objective, universally applicable criteria, designate every human being as belonging unequivocably to one of two mutually exclusive categories, either “male” or “female.”
Most people, whether adults or infants, seem by agreement of their external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, gonads, and sex chromosomes to so obviously fit into one or the other of these categories that we assume this must be true for everyone. Yet if there are people with enough differently mismatched assortments of these or any other sexually dimorphic criteria that we cannot find any one criterion, or set of criteria, by which we could satisfactorally designate every person as either unequivocally male or unequivocally female, then our current marriage statutes will not pass Constitutional muster for failure to abide by the requirement for equal protection and due process. For if there are any who cannot be objectively defined as either male or female, then either they are neither, and so are prohibited from marrying as a matter of sexual discrimination, or they are both, and may marry either a man or a woman, which is then a case of sex discrimination towards both men and women.
The people I am talking about, of course, are all those, including “true hermaphrodites,” currently included under the umbrella term “intersexed.” Some of the individual “types” that fall within this category are probably as common as about one in 1500 live births, while others are much rarer. But overall, a reasonable estimate seems to be that about one in 500 infants is born with sufficiently ambiguous external genitalia that it cannot be said to be obviously either male or female. As far as other sexual criteria are concerned, there are individuals with testes, male sex chromosomes(XY), obviously female external genitalia, but no functional internal reproductive organs; others with one testis and one ovary; or with two gonads that are not differentiated as either testes or ovaries; or without differentiated gonadal tissue at all; or with female gonads and chromosomes but apparently male extrernal genitalia.
In other words, no matter what criteria we select, there is no consistent, objective way of defining “male” and “female” that will allow us to place everyone unequivocally within one or the other of these categories, and any statute that requires anyone to be definable as either “male” or “female” to participate in an otherwise common benefit does not pass Constitutional muster.
Sumner
Grey
Brattleboro, VT
*****
Outright deserves support, not attacks
I saw in the weeks past in the people putting Outright Vermont down and talking trash and spreading lies about them. Me, I think we need not spread trash; Outright Vermont is a good thing. When I’ve needed to talk to someone, they were there for me. When I’ve felt down, they were there for me. When I needed info on stuff, they were there for me. And to me, I know that they’re going to schools, not to promote their lifestyle, but to help kids understand about being gay. Did you know there has been a study done and that 1 in every 10 people are gay lesbian or bisexual? If we do not let them know they’re ok, people, if they find out they are gay later on in life, might hurt themselves. I mean, the reason behind most gay youth suicides or drug or alcohol use is that society tells them they’re not ok.
I think Outright is a good thing and that it should be going around to schools. There is no porn in there stuff; I’ve seen their info. I do not know were people are getting their [negative] info, but they better get it somewhere else. Wake up and get a life and stay out of ours! We are not all up in you lives, so you do not need to be in ours. Live and let live. As a gay male, I feel you need to stop talking trash and spreading lies and hatred.
Thanks again, Outright Vermont, you’re the best—keep up the good work and never give up!!!
Bradley
James Jr
Piermont, NH
*****
On darkness
I have rarely been quite so offended or felt victim-blamed quite so strongly as I did reading Rev. Christine Leslie’s November column.
Imagine my surprise to discover that, no, I don’t have seasonal affective disorder—it “seems” I suffer from “something” that is currently “called” that. Apparently current medical thought indicates that the amount and proper absorption of sunlight can affect mood and function in some people. But Rev. Leslie informs me that this is not the case; rather, I suffer from a variety of other ills that cause me to have physical and emotional difficulty during the winter months.
I had no idea that I was so confused, ignorant, self-misled, un-valued, avoidant, and weak-willed.
Disease as moral failing or character weakness is an old theory that just won’t go away, no matter how often it is disproved. Cancer and tuberculosis were such cases; HIV/AIDS is still far too often targeted this way. Anyone struggling with mental health issues faces it daily. I heard my share of “just snap out of it” (in other words, you’re just making it up or blowing it out of proportion or too weak to fix yourself) during a deep depression in my adolescence. Let me tell you, there’s almost nothing worse one could say to a person suffering from a bewildering and debilitating episode of clinical depression.
To hear from a pastoral counselor that I don’t “really” understand or that it doesn’t matter the way I’ve “made it matter” or that I’m taking the “easy” way out by “obsessing” over something she deems trivial is more than a slap in the face to my very real experience of seasonal affective disorder. It’s offensive, and it’s unprofessional. I suggest that Rev. Leslie take some of the time offered by the shorter days to think before she writes.
Carolyn
Ashby
Burlington