Out In The Mountains : News - Douglas Defends Transgender Rights Veto

by Paul Olsen

      MONTPELIER - When it comes to leadership on issues of concern to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Vermonters, Governor Jim Douglas (R) will probably never win a John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.
       Douglas opposes gay marriage and civil unions, declined to issue a proclamation recognizing Vermont’s Pride Day celebration, let Vermont’s medical marijuana bill become law without his signature, won’t commit to appointing a GLBT person to Vermont’s Human Rights Commission, and recently vetoed H.865, legislation banning discrimination in Vermont on the basis of gender identity or expression.
       In a recent interview with Out in The Mountains, Douglas discussed his veto of H.865 and his re-election campaign against Democrat Scudder Parker. Excerpts from the interview:

OITM: Why did you veto H.865?

Douglas: I oppose discrimination against anyone. It is important that each and every Vermonter have the opportunity to be treated equally in our society and maximize his or her potential. But I believe that bill raises questions that are unanswered and may have unintended consequences.
       Employers raised questions, attorneys who advise employer clients raised questions, some in state government did, and the Human Rights Commission expressed concern. It seemed to me it (H.865) was rushed through without answering a lot of questions. I think the discussion can and will continue.

OITM: Since vetoing the bill you’ve been labeled “Douglas the Discriminator.” Why is this characterization wrong?

Douglas: It has taken on a political overtone. People who don’t support me politically look for any opportunity to raise an objection. I think overall I’ve got a pretty good record on which to seek another term. I regret that (label) and hope those who support the bill will respect other points of view, including mine, and continue the conversation rather than resorting to name-calling.

OITM: You’ve cited technical concerns with H.865 as the reasons for your veto and you have also said the bill isn’t necessary. Which is it?

Douglas: Both. The Attorney General brought a (transgender) discrimination case with our current antidiscrimination laws. A number of courts in other jurisdictions have said clearly that gender antidiscrimination laws are sufficient for transgender situations. So I’m not sure that it is necessary. The technical reasons are the ones I mentioned (above).

OITM: An Attorney General’s opinion doesn’t have the weight of law. A new Attorney General could have a very different interpretation. Wasn’t the legislature attempting to codify the opinion?

Douglas: The courts have been consistent when these issues have come up around the country. So I wonder if there is likely any other interpretation.

OITM: What changes need to be made to H.865 to insure your support?

Douglas: I’m going to be meeting with the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Rep. Bill Lippert) fairly soon to talk about it so it may be premature to get into details. I look forward to continuing that discussion, and it is very possible that the legislature will come up with a bill that I can support.

OITM: Antigay activist Steve Cable of Vermont Renewal said H.865 would call for “affirmative action for cross-dressers and transvestites.” Does this description accurately describe your concerns with the bill?

Douglas: I haven’t expressed any concern about cross dressing. I’m concerned about how this bill might be interpreted if it were enacted. I think this bill would be good for lawyers as there would be more legal grounds to bring lawsuits and I don’t think that is fruitful. My reasons were the ones I articulated in my (veto) message. I know there are strongly held views on both sides of this debate as you have noted. It is important for people to respect other points of view and have a civil discussion and not resort to inflammatory or pejorative language.

OITM: You cited Vermont’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) as one of the reasons for vetoing the bill. Yet the HRC did not support legislation recognizing Vermont’s Abenaki Indians and you signed that. Why the inconsistency?

Douglas: I’m not sure why that is an inconsistency.

OITM: Chuck Kletecka, the only openly gay member of the HRC, resigned to protest your veto of H.865. Will you appoint an openly gay man, lesbian, bisexual or transgender to replace him?

Douglas: I haven’t made that decision yet. I’ll consider all qualified applicants and make a decision that will be in the public interest. The biggest category of complaints that comes before the commission relate to disability, not gender, so a case might be made that that might be a more important representative on the commission.

OITM: You took some political heat for not appointing a person ofcolor to the HRC. Do you see a similar concern around the issue of a GLBT appointment?

Douglas: The purpose is to appoint people who have judgment, are fair, and who can interpret and apply the law equitably. I regret the categorization discussion in terms of appointments.

OITM: Supporters of H.865 criticized you for not meeting with members of Vermont’s transgender community. How do you respond to this criticism and would you meet with them now?

Douglas: I have talked with a transgender friend since my decision. I haven’t met with representatives of all interest groups on every bill that comes through.
      It’s just not practical. I am going to meet with Chairman Lippert and see where the conversation goes from there. I have to be perfectly honest, when confronted with a demonstration it doesn’t make me more likely to want to engage in a conversation. Rather than turning their backs on the issue it would be more fruitful to have a civil discussion.

OITM: Will you issue a proclamation recognizing Vermont’s Pride Day celebration this year?

Douglas: I don’t know the answer to that. If requested, I’m happy to take a look at it.

OITM: Will you attend the celebration?

Douglas: I’d rather see opportunities to include everyone, not categorize Vermonters by sexual orientation, and find a more inclusive way to participate.

OITM: As Governor, you could issue an executive order prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression, any way you want to define it, in state government. Will you consider this until the legislature revisits the issue?

Douglas: I don’t know if that is true or not. We have laws on hiring and contracts with unions so I’m not sure if the basis of your question is correct or not.

OITM: You oppose gay marriage and civil unions, won’t commit to appointing a GLBT person to the HRC, didn’t issue a Pride Day proclamation last year, let medical marijuana become law without your signature, and vetoed H.865. Why should GLBT Vermonters support your re-election?

Douglas: I believe all Vermonters should support my re-election because I’m focused on making this an affordable place to live for everyone. We’ve done well economically over the past few years and the state is fiscally strong, but I worry about the affordability of housing, higher education, and property taxes. I’m focused on making this a place where everybody can live regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or any other category.

Paul Olsen is the Vermont Correspondent for Boston’s In Newsweekly.