' 2 out in the mountains I JULY 2006 I MOUNTAINPRIDEMEDIAORG b\. Ethecrestlof our world organization of Episcopalians in the l l United States. * g Mac:_~lyallab‘a’s_ been the . foremost leaderofganizing forgay‘ , V 'eq<;,;ality.in Nige'f‘a,‘working t.o.S.t!?p ma. proposedvlaw which would out- VERMONT N EWS/POLITICS 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, Gover- nor Jim Douglas (R) will prob- ably never win a John F. Kenne dy Profile in Courage Award. Douglas opposes gay marriage and civil unions, declined to is- sue a proclamation recognizing Vermont's Pride Day celebration, let Vermont's medical marijuana bill become law without his sig- nature, won't commit to appoint- ing a GLBT person to Vermont’s Human Rights Commission, and recently. vetoed H.865, legisla- tion 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. Ex- cerpts 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 maxi- mize his or her potential. But I believe that bill raises questions that are unanswered and may have unintended consequences. Employers raised questions, at- torneys who advise employer clients raised questions, some in state government did, and the . Human Rights Commission ex- pressed concem. It seemed to me it (H.865) was rushed through without answering a lot of ques- tions. 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 sup- port me politically look for any’ opportunity to raise an objection. I think overall. I've got a pretty good record on which to seek an- other 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 narne-calling. OITM: Youlve cited technical concerns with H.865 as the reasons for your veto and you have also said the bill isn't nec- . essary. Which is it?.. Douglas: Both. The Attorney Gen- eral brought a (tiansgender) dis- crimination case with our current antidiscrimination laws. A number of courts in other jurisdictions have said clearly that gender anti- discrimination laws are sufficient for transgender situations. So I'm not sure that it is necessary. The technical reasons are the ones I mentioned (above). _OlTM: An Attorney Gener- al's opinion doesn't have the weight of law. A new Attorney General could have a very dif- ferent interpretation. Wasn't the legislature attempting to codify the opinion? Douglas: The courts have been consistent when these issues have come up around the coun- try. 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 legisla- ture will come up with a bill that I can support. OITM: Antigay activist Steve Cable of Vermont Renewal said H.865 would call for "affirma- tive 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 dress- ing. 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 Ia.r1iculat— ed 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 Hu- -regret the categorization discus- man Rights Commission (HRC) as one of the reasons for ve- ’ toing the bill. Yet the HRC did not support legislation recog- nizing Vermont's Abenaki Indi- ans and you signed that. Why the inconsistency? 1 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 transgen- der to replace him? Douglas: I haven't made that deci- sion 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 repre- sentative on the commission. OITM: You took some politi- l cal héat'for not appointinga person of color to the HRC. Do you see a similar concern around the issue of a GLBT ap- / pointment? Douglas: The purpose is to ap- point people who have judgment, are fair, and who can interpret and apply the law equitably. I sion 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 criti- cism and would you meet with them now? . Douglas: I have talked with a transgender friend since my de- cision. I haven't met with repre- sentatives 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 per- fectly 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. OIT M: Will you issue a proclama- tion recognizing Vermont's Pride CONTINUED -) [,.