Letters to the Editor
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.
Dean support off base
I am writing to express my deep disappointment in the recent fundraising letter from Vermonters for Civil Unions, Inc. effectively endorsing Governor Howard Dean in his bid for reelection. Their call to make qualifying contributions to Dean’s campaign smacks of pandering and a desire to maintain the privilege of the few rather then seek justice for all. Governor Dean has clearly stated on any number of occasions that he does not support marriage rights for all people and that he does support maintaining an unjust, two-tiered apartheid system in which those of us who are deemed to be abnormal are not to be treated equally under the law.
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.
Gaining the economic rights and responsibilities of marriage through civil unions does not reduce homophobia, end violence against queer folk or educate the general population about the worth and dignity of every human being. What it does do is create more business for lawyers. I note with irritation the recent column in Out in the Mountains written by Susan Murray and Beth Robinson advocating the purchase of legal prenuptial agreements placed right next to an advertisement on the same subject bought by Susan and Beth’s law firm, Langrock, Sperry and Wool. It appears that “justice for all” is less important then the opportunity to make a buck (or lots of bucks).
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.
The LGBT community, and the sub-set known as “Vermonters for Civil Unions,” should take a hard look at our goals – do we really want to become simply another cog in an oppressive social and economic system or do we want to work for a world where those who have been ignored, patronized, beaten, killed, shut out and starved out will finally have a voice? I know my answer: I am voting for hope, not fear. I will be supporting Anthony Pollina for governor.
Christopher Kaufman
Editor’s note: The placement of the referenced ad was not requested or influenced by the columnists or their firm.
Dwyer strikes out
I’ve got to hand it to Ruth Dwyer, who is running for the top position in the state. I believe that if someone feels strongly enough about something, they should go for it.
However, let’s check the qualifications of Ms. Dwyer. She is running for governor of Vermont, which means she has to have the ability to make decisions on her own. Ms. Dwyer and her “followers” have stated quite loudly that they are going to obtain outside help to demolish the civil union bill. She’s basically admitted that she’s incapable of making decisions on her own. Strike One.
Also, Ms. Dwyer has basically stated with her actions that she will belittle and outcast anyone who is different and doesn’t think the way she does. Can you say Hitler? Strike Two.
If Ms. Dwyer becomes governor, is she going to have to ask another state how to run Vermont? If so, we can say goodbye to Vermont as we know it and say hello to Connecticut #2, Massachusetts #2, California #2....Strike Three, you’re out!
Dean Pratt
Burlington
Pride kudos
On behalf of PlanetOut and me personally, I want to extend a huge thank you to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community of Vermont for your warm reception of PlanetOut at this year’s Pride festivities.
I was energized by the beauty of Burlington and the warmth of the people. Congratulations on your groundbreaking Civil Union Law. It was dynamite to be able to join in this year’s particularly special celebration and to speak with several couples who met on PlanetOut and plan to “tie-the-knot” in the near future. I snapped some fun shots; they can be found on PlanetOut’s Pride site (www.pride.planetout.com).
Bryce Eberhart
California
Not all narrow
I’d like to take issue with an assumption that I see in Kevin Moss’ letter in the June issue.
While I certainly agree that it’s not ok for non-queer folk to tell queer folk what is best for their lives, I disagree that [all] “straight people have such a sense of arrogant entitlement” that they [all] want in on civil unions.
Yes, there are opposite sex couples who would like to have the civil union option, but it’s not necessarily because they feel entitled to it. It’s because they, too, fought long and hard for their GLBT friends to have the benefits and responsibilities they had open to them through marriage. It’s because, if given the choice, they would prefer to be a part of a new institution that carries with it the acknowledgement of diversity and affirms the same-sex couples they know and love and fought for, rather than be a part of an old institution that carries with it the specter of oppression.
There are also opposite-sex couples in which one or both are bisexual. Should they have to choose an institution that would exclude them if their partner were of the same sex because they are currently excluded from the institution specifically created to acknowledge them if that were true?
I’m bi- and queer and an active member of the GLBT community regardless of the sex of my partner. What I want is a legal option that would acknowledge and be open to all my possible partners, not two institutions that each discriminate against me in their own ways. Because marriage has so much “traditional” baggage, I would prefer that option to be civil union.
So, while some of those “straight” folks do want “in” for the wrong reasons, don’t assume that all of them are being arrogant rather than wanting to make a supportive statement, or even that all of them are straight...
Carolyn Ashby
Burlington