New Anti-Gay Proposals Introduced

Gains that Vermont’s gay and lesbian community made in the past decade or so are under assault by opponents of the civil unions law. More than a half-dozen different initiatives have been introduced to the Legislature this year that seek to roll back some of the rights and benefits that have been recognized.

The proposals run the gamut.

One seeks to repeal the civil unions law and to nullify and void all civil unions that already have been formed. Another proposes to limit civil unions to Vermont residents only.

Rep. Nancy Sheltra, a Republican from Derby whose name appears on several of the bills, caused a stir when she proposed that teachers and “agents” of schools be prohibited from discussing homosexuality in schools.

A petition, signed by some of the people who were involved in the Take Back Vermont movement, has been filed with the House that seeks to repeal the hate crimes statute.

Some of the bills appear to be innocuous on their face but would have much broader potential consequences. For example, one bill would give justices of the peace the ability to opt out of performing civil unions if they have moral qualms. A separate bill would extend the same option to judges who currently have to perform both marriages and civil unions.

If the option for justices of the peace were to pass, it would undermine Vermont’s nondiscrimination law. That statute currently outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That’s why a justice of the peace who officiates at marriages cannot refuse to do the same for same-sex civil union partners.

All of the proposals have in common an underlying unease, in some cases outright hostility, toward homosexuality. House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Peg Flory, a Republican from Pittsford, said that is her principal objection with civil unions.

She understands that something akin to civil unions must remain the law because the Vermont Supreme Court said in the Baker case that gay and lesbian Vermonters were being unconstitutionally denied the rights and benefits of marriage. She does not believe civil unions need to be extended merely to same-sex couples though.

“I would not be for repeal without coming up with a replacement that I think would meet the Baker test,” Flory said. “My main objection with the bill this year is the same as it was last year: that it appears to grant benefits and parallel marriage based primarily on sexual orientation.”

Flory’s committee has been spending one day a week taking testimony on civil unions and what changes it might make to the law. With a Republican majority in the House, there’s a good possibility that some modification will pass, either this year or next.

That’s what helped get many of the newly elected Republicans to Montpelier in the first place, and they intend to carry out what they say are their constituents’ wishes.

“I’m for the total repeal and nullification of the civil union law,” said Rep. Carl Haas, a Republican who represents the city of Rutland. “I pledged that I’d come here and work to repeal and to nullify that law, and anything less would be reneging on the contract I have with the people that sent me here.”

Sheltra, who has been one of the leading opponents of civil unions during the past year, delivered the same message to the Judiciary Committee when she testified on her repeal bill.

“I think it’s time we as legislators listened to the people,” Sheltra said.

There’s disagreement among lawmakers, even those who oppose civil unions, just what voters think about the law.

Even though it was the highest profile issue in the 2000 campaign, voters re-elected Gov. Howard Dean, who signed it into law, and returned a Democratic majority to the Senate that supports it.

Only in the House did Republicans and civil unions opponents take a majority.

“The people back home did not do the same thing in the Senate or the governor’s seat,” Flory told Sheltra when she testified. “I’m afraid all of us up here have very mixed messages. How do you deal with that mix of mixed messages?”

Sheltra says she believes it’s just a matter of time before voters throw out anyone who supports civil unions.

“There’s a wave out there,” Sheltra said. “I think it will sweep into the Senate and governor’s office. We can ride that wave or we can sit back.”

With the Republican majority, opponents of gay rights appear to be emboldened in their efforts to roll back the gains the gay and lesbian community has made since the anti-discrimination law was broadened in 1992 to cover sexual orientation.

Sheltra has been quite open about her desire to combat what she describes as the “homosexual agenda.’’ That was the motivation behind her bill on schools.

The notion that schools were helping to promote an agenda on behalf of gay and lesbian Vermonters became a prominent issue in the gubernatorial campaign last year.

“I think the civil unions issue brought to the forefront that the homosexual agenda is very strongly being brought into the school systems of Vermont,” Sheltra was quoted as saying after she introduced her bill.

Not only does she not want homosexuality to be discussed in schools, she would make it illegal to suggest that it is a natural orientation.

“No employee or agent of a school district shall instruct, counsel or advise a student that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is innate or unchangeable,” the bill states.

The flurry of bills that would affect gay and lesbian Vermonters’ lives has put Rep. William Lippert of Hinesburg in the unenviable position of being the community’s spokesman in the Statehouse.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he has to listen to most of the proposals and to the testimony of their proponents.

The news media turned to him again after Sheltra introduced her schools bill.

“That bill is built on the premise that somehow the fact that gay and lesbian people are positive, contributing members of society will somehow be a threat to the children of Vermont,” he said.

“It’s completely unfounded and perpetuates a stereotype and prejudice that does more damage to the children of Vermont than having them know the positive contributions of the gay and lesbian people of Vermont, including in the schools,” Lippert said.

It’s unclear where any of the legislation is headed this year. There’s not a majority in the House Judiciary Committee in favor of repealing civil unions, but there is a majority to modify it in some way. Given that their motivation is because the law is based on sexual orientation, there might be a willingness to act on some of the other issues as well.

There is a fairly widespread belief that the House will not act on those issues until next year, an election year. But there are many conservatives in the House demanding to do something immediately.

For the time being, the Senate has not taken up civil unions in any way and only a couple of the bills have been introduced there.