VEFiMONT'S NEWSPAPER FOR LESBIANS, GAY MEN, AND BISEXUALS

Out in the Mo

U."~.lt‘v.~T-£Fg',<5%L-M. V0 .,,
U11 
0 T 5 1992

   
 

Volume VII, Number 8

October 1992

Vote 92

Keith Goslant, Co-Chair
Vermont Coalition of Lesbians & Gay Men

This is a crucial election for Verinont’s
lesbian, gay, and bisexual community.
We gained strong antidiscrimination pro-
tection during the past legislative session
with the passage of S-131. It would be
easy to become complacent. This was a
major victory for our community, but
there is more we need to do. We must en-
sure these protections are not taken away,
while still looking towards the future
needs of our community. Recent court
decisions in the areas of child custody
and adoptions as well as the extension of
employment benefits to domestic part-
ners are examples of the work yet before

j us.

; Our opposition has been well organized
. in the past and there is every indication
‘ that this election year is no different. The
‘ Vennont Chapter of Lesbian and Gay

and Bisexual Veterans recently received
a letter from an incumbent Senator ask-
ing for help as he had been “targeted by
the fundamentalists” partly due to his
support of S-131. Both parties, con-
servatives, moderates, and progressives
are hoping to gain a majority in the leg-
islature for the next biennium. During a
recent discussion on ETV’s Vermont This
Week, the lesbian, gay and bisexual com-
munity was identified as the new force
on the political scene. We need to be ac-
tive in our support of those incumbents
who supported S-131 and the candidates
Who will be our, future advocates and
friends.

The Coalition did not survey candidates
this_year regarding their support of, the
lesbian, gay and bisexual community, so
It IS not possible to give a fully detailed
list of all the candidates’ viewpoints.
However, some candidates have met in-
dividually with members of our com-
munity and some are well known friends.

Continued on page 4

 

Lesbian and Gay Issues
Move to Center of Presidential Race

Terje Anderson

Lesbian and gay issues appear set to play a more prominent role in this year’s presidential
election than ever before. The combination of a Democratic platfonn and candidate, Bill
Clinton, supportive of our community and a Republican strategy of attacking us, sets the
stage for contentious debate. ‘

The Democratic platform calls for passage of national legislation outlawing discrimination
based on sexual orientation, lifting the military’s ban on gay men and lesbians, and a con-
ceited national effort against AIDS. The Republican platform, by contrast, says “We oppose
efforts by the Democratic Party to include sexual preference as a protected minority re-
ceiving preferential statiis under civil rights statutes...” \-

Nowhere was the contrast between the two panies greater than at their national conventions
held this summer. In New York, the Democratic Convention was hailed by many national
activists as a new high point in lesbian ‘and gay electoral politics. More than 100 openly gay
and lesbian delegates, alternates and committee members attended the convention, pro-
ducing the largest lesbian and gay caucus ever. Throughout the convention, those delegates
were visible on television and in newspapers, waving signs saying “Lesbian and Gay Rights
Now,” and wearing gay and AIDS buttons.

UVM Faculty File Grievance

Deborah Lashman

Continued on page 2

Five faculty members at the University of Vennont have filed a grievance with the
State Labor Relations Board, claiming that refusal of domestic partner benefits is dis-
criminatory and violates internal university policy.

After a two year fight to obtain benefits for their partners, the faculty exhausted ad-
ministrative appeals when interim president Thomas Salmon rejected a conclusion of
the Faculty Grievance Committee, which had recommended that benefits be allowed.
The Grievance Committee said the university’s regulations are discriminatory because
they restrict benefits to employees, spouses and dependent children.

University lawyer Lee Liggett claims the policy is not discriminatory because the
school does not provide benefits to unmarried partners of heterosexual faculty mem-
bers. Faculty filing the grievance point out that unlike heterosexuals, they do not have
the option to marry and thus obtain “spousal” benefits.

The case played a part in the compromises activists made to ensure passage of the civil .

rights bill. During debate on the law Rep. Ruth Stokes (R) Burlington, who also sits on
the Board of‘ Trustees of the University of Vermont and thus knew of the faculty grie-
vance, added language to the bill to say that it should “not be construed to change the
definition of family or dependent in employee benefit plans.”

While the case precedes the enactment of the civil rights law by two years (though fil-
ing with the state Labor Relations Board came mne days after the law went into effect
on July 1) it may well be seen as the first test of the new law.

Continued on page 2