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.
The People Have Spoken
Bill H502: To repeal or not to repeal, that is the question. I believe that question has been answered more than enough times. The Sheltra/Flory fiasco has tried to repeal the civil union bill with much fanfare. They have put aside crucial issues to be discussed to have their close-minded prejudices become the forefront. I’m sure that if anyone asked Flory’s/Sheltra’s constituents if the most important issues at hand is repealing the civil unions law or reevaluating Act 60, pushing for cleaner air/water, and school safety, most would say that the latter three would be the top vote getters.
Also, wasn’t it this group who said last year to let the people decide about civil unions in November? With the re-election of Governor Dean, I think the people have spoken; only for the Flory/Sheltra clan, it wasn’t the answer they were looking for.
Flory wants civil unions to become reciprocal partnerships so that they can be more inclusive. However, if Flory would open her eyes (and mind), she would realize that no one has requested reciprocal benefits since it became available last year. Yet, thousands of same-sex couples jumped on board to be civil unionized. If this is such a powerful and true Vermont yearning, wouldn’t more people have gone to the Department of Health to sign up for this “privilege?” Flory doesn’t want to open the doors to other non-marrying couples, but rather to demolish civil unions completely.
One more thing: Should civil unions be repealed, does the Flory/Sheltra clan want the state to be driven back into numerous lengthy lawsuits, which the taxpayers would have to foot the bill for? My guess would be no.
Dean Pratt
Burlington, VT
*****
“News” Item
I’m not a Vermonter (though two nieces and a nephew graduated from high school in Montpelier), but I live near the border so I sometimes check out your coverage online. Obviously you’re working on a shoestring, but even so I’m shocked to see you present as a “news” item a press release from Rich Tafel and his Log Cabin Republicans, under the partisan headline “House votes to repeal anti-gay death tax.” You have to be very rich to feel the pinch of the current estate tax, and extremely rich to pay anything under the Democrats’ reasonable proposal. The estate tax prevents Bill Gates from crowning his son king of the U.S., even if the son is a good-for-nothing who never works a day in his life. How did George W. get to be president if not for the extreme wealth of his father and friends?
It’s ironic that this bogus “news” item should be pitched to lesbians and gays in Vermont, a low-income state. The repeal of the estate tax favored by rich Republicans (some of them gay, no doubt) would decimate the programs that allow people like myself to rise from the lower economic classes. I was born at home, not because it was fashionable but because it was cheap, during the Great (or not-so-great) Depression. Even so, some of the Roosevelt era economics allowed my family to attain middle-class status and allowed me to qualify for a National Merit Scholarship, Phi Beta Kappa, Ph.D., and all that.
Do you really want a country in which rich people like Vice President Cheney can simply pass on all their wealth to their heirs (even lesbian ones) who didn’t earn a bit of it? Or is better for us all to level the playing field? It’s not a death tax, by the way. Only living people (very rich) have to pay it.
Jim Humphreys
Leverett, MA
*****
Local Author
This is a letter of congratulations and thanks for your continued great work in the honesty of your writing and reporting in Out in the Mountains.
I’d like to add a brief word about the author, Jane Bowles, in Ernie Mcleod’s piece, Queer Classics.
Jane Bowles had lived, on and off, in East Montpelier, where she worked on many of her stories. Her wonderful, Two Serious Ladies, was largely written in East Montpelier. Two Serious Ladies was published in 1943. Jane Bowles lived with her lover, Helvetia Perkins, at Helvetia Perkins’s old brick farm house. The general store in East Montpelier is within walking distance of Helvetia Perkins’s brick farm house, and I can imagine Jane Bowles walking down the dirt road hillside to that same general store, that was then also the post office, in East Montpelier, to get her mail.
With all thanks to you all at Out in the Mountains.
Susan Weaver
Marshfield, VT
*****
Compromise
As the superintendent mentioned in the April, 2001 article, “Superintendent Takes Action Against Outright Vermont,” I would like to clear up any false impressions that might have been left with your readers.
After teachers received my memo, I met with the staff involved. We had a very positive discussion and agreed that we all had a common goal – to provide a safe haven and a supportive adult to speak to, for students who were being harassed, particularly because of sexuality issues.
Both the staff and I felt a compromise was in order. We agreed that we would continue to use the Outright Vermont sticker, with the pink triangle, since it was already posted and students understood its symbolism. The compromise was the elimination of the Outright Vermont name and information. Outright Vermont was the issue in our community, not that we provide a safe and caring environment for all our students.
I recommended this compromise action to the school board and they unanimously agreed. They further supported this decision at a later meeting when the topic was raised again. All staff members who had agreed to the compromise followed through on their part. As we would treat any other student request for information, the staff would give Outright’s telephone number and website to any student who requested it.
While I realize that many will see this action as a sell-out of Outright Vermont, I do not agree. In our case, the school district has a neutral stance regarding Outright Vermont. It does not encourage, nor does it discourage, participation in the organization. The board does have a responsibility to insure the welfare of all of its students and has not abandoned that responsibility.
Walter J. Goetz
Interim Superintendent
Poultney, VT
*****
Bad for . . .
If you printed “House Votes to Repeal Anti-Gay Death Tax” in order to provoke some discussion or some strong feelings, you’ve been effective!
HR 8, the House bill that repeals the estate tax over 10 years is bad for democracy, bad for our economy, and bad for philanthropy. The fact that individuals, gay or straight, may personally benefit from repeal of the estate tax does not mitigate the injustice this bill creates. It is the very reason the bill is unjust.
Repeal of the estate tax would benefit the wealthiest 2% in the country, at the expense of the other 98% of Americans. The billions of dollars that are lost to repeal would have to be made up by increasing taxes on those less able to pay. If our tax-phobic Republican administration failed to raise those lost tax dollars, then government programs would be cut. Social Security, Medicare, education, the arts; these programs, not military expenditures, would be the victims of repeal.
Taxes and philanthropy, at their best, promote democracy by preventing over-concentrations of wealth and poverty. Eliminating the estate tax would have a double negative effect. In addition to the lost tax dollars, eliminating the estate tax would have a devastating impact on charitable bequests. The threat of the estate tax motivates wealthy people to consider, beyond their own self-interest, what has meaning for them.
And this consideration results in support of charitable organizations and foundations through bequests. The US Treasury estimates repeal of the estate tax could result in a loss of upwards of $5 billion dollars in charitable giving. Foundations, like our own Samara Foundation of Vermont, are the beneficiaries of approximately one-third of those bequests.
Log Cabin Republicans’ argument that the estate tax discriminates against gay and lesbian couples is true. It also discriminates against single people, regardless of sexual orientation. The estate tax exclusion level may be too low. And family farms and small businesses may require special clauses to preclude total loss of these assets by the families that have built them.
These are reasons to reform the estate tax law, not to repeal it. As GLBT people, we can choose to throw our lot in with those who are only for themselves, or we can elevate ourselves, politically and economically, by working for justice and fairness. Where will you stand?
Linda Markin
Hardwick, VT
President, Samara Foundation of Vermont
*****
Civil Unions
Well, a year has passed after the Civil Union law passed. After careful scrutiny of all the divorce decrees in the state for the past year, I have yet to see a single heterosexual marriage that has failed due to the law. This directly contradicts one of the dire consequences the religious bigots were screaming would happen if this passed. I also have yet to see the throngs of gay people invading every corner of the state from the rest of the world.
Right wing republicans are now trying to force a repeal on the grounds that it needs to include more people. The reciprocal beneficiaries part of the law covers this but has not been used. Blood relatives already have had these protections in law. That wouldn’t be a pack of lies they were using in order to deny citizen’s equal rights would it?? Why don’t these people admit they are trying to shove their religious views down everyone’s throat and get on with it. We have more pressing concerns that some of our representatives should be addressing, but all that they seem to have is sex on the brain.
Steven Board
Roxbury, VT