MONTPELIER - In a surprise move, after years of work by advocates and final overwhelming approval by both House and Senate, Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed the gender identity and expression bill on May 17th.
     “I didn’t expect it,” said Jes Kraus, a Montpelier attorney who helped draft language for the bill and worked with the legislature for the past two years.
      “The governor’s office never reached out to us,” Kraus said, to clarify any issues they may have had with the bill.
      The bill, now known as An Act Relating to Nondiscrimination (H.865), would include the category of “gender identity and expression” in existing legislation that already protects the categories of race, color, creed, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, and national origin. The proposed law would ban discrimination or harassment based on gender identity or expression in employment, banks, housing, public accommodations and schools.
     “Banning discrimination based on gender identity was supported by the vast majority of Vermont legislators, numerous civil rights and human services groups, and many of the businesses in our state,” said R.U.1.2? Queer Community Center Executive Director Christopher Kaufman when he learned of the veto. “We’re going to work as hard as we can the next couple of weeks. We’re not going to let the issue lie.”
      However, a week later came the news that Democrats decided not to pursue an effort to override the veto of H.865 or the veto of another bill that addressed liability issues regarding genetically modified crops.
     House Speaker Gaye Symington (D-Jericho) said it was clear that there would not be enough votes to override either bill, and that bringing the Legislature back to Montpelier would cost an additional $50,000 a day.
     May 17th was the last day the Republican governor legally had to take action on the bill. Some supporters thought the governor might take the easy way out: by taking no action at all, the bill would have become law without his signature. But on the final day, Gov. Douglas put pen to paper and vetoed the bill, shortly after the state’s Human Rights Commission voted not to support the bill and advised the governor of its decision the same day.
     “I am concerned that (the bill) did not receive the kind of careful scrutiny and study that would be expected prior to making major modifications to Vermont’s anti-discrimination laws,” the Burlington Free Press quoted Gov. Douglas.
     Human Rights Commissioner Charles Kleteca, casting the lone “yes” vote on the five-member panel, resigned in protest of both the governor’s veto and the HRC’s refusal to support H.865.
     He noted that with only one African-American woman member, the HRC, mostly made up of white attorneys, does not at all reflect the people who seek assistance from the commission.
     Kleteca noted in his letter that Douglas had appointed four of the five current members.
      “I’m disappointed to lose Chuck as commissioner,” said HRC Executive Director Robert Appel. He described Kleteca as a “strong voice” for the HRC who was “very thorough” in his work.
     Supporters of H.865 pointed out that the state’s attorney general’s office and the HRC had both worked with them in writing the language of the bill.
     “The commission, I believe, in a prior year had reviewed this type of bill,” said HRC Chairman Thomas Zonay. “I was not on the commission at that time.” He referred OITM to the HRC’s May 17th letter stating “the language of the bill is ambiguous in ways which will make its implementation difficult.”
     Asked why the HRC made its decision at the last minute, Zonay said May 17th was the regularly scheduled meeting on the 3rd Wednesday of the month.
     But that didn’t wash with some.
     “They had opportunities to vote on this forever,” said Rep. Jason Lorber, a Democrat representing Burlington who is openly gay. The fact that the governor couldn’t come up with a specific objection “shows he’s trying to skirt the issue (and) shows what side he’s on,” Lorber added.
     Some observers felt that the governor and the HRC may have been ultimately persuaded by the opposition; in particular by Vermont Renewal, a group that says it stands for moral values “based on the Judeo-Christian ethic,” that has actively worked against passage of H.865.
      “The bill has the potential of creating an environment of ‘affirmative action’ for cross-dressers and transvestites, which is a concept we vehemently oppose,” the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus quoted Steve Cable from the Rutland-based Vermont Renewal.
     Liz Campbell of Rutland initiated legal rights for transwomen and transmen in Vermont when she successfully lobbied to have “gender identity” included as a protected class in Vermont’s hate crimes protection laws in 1999. Then in 2000, she was also successful in singlehandedly passing her gender identity bill (the original version of H.865) through the Senate judiciary committee. However, she scuttled her own bill in order to not “raise flags” that might have made it more difficult for the civil union law to pass. The bill was reintroduced two years ago as H.478, then renamed as H.865.
       With the legislative session now over, the bill will have to be reintroduced again next year.
     “I frankly think it’s ridiculous,” said Thomas “T.J.” Donovan, a Democrat running for Chittenden County State’s Attorney. “I don’t understand why he would veto a bill that not only protects people, but treats everybody as equals.”
      UVM student Rhian Waters said the veto “won’t really affect things at UVM,” where the university adopted gender identity equality as policy a year ago.
     Still, “There’s a lot of disappointment surrounding the veto,” Waters said.
     “You never know what his position is,” said “local dyke” Lynne Matthews of Gov. Douglas’ decision. “I think he bullies people to try to force them to change their positions.”
     “This discrimination bill was passed by the Legislature with broad, tri-partisan support,” said Scudder Parker, the Democratic candidate for governor.
     “Jim Douglas either doesn’t have the courage to stand up to the groups opposed to protecting the rights of all Vermonters or he is cynically using this issue to divide people.”
     OITM was unable to reach Gov. Douglas for comment. A spokeswoman said last month the governor will issue a letter explaining his reasons for the veto.