Out in the Mountains "which isov rtty racist,'se’ =‘*To.m‘A10iSi[ ». .Tho'rr’r‘Cource|le v p ’Ellen=g‘ ’ Natlflaftlsbtt Moira A . Paulplsen j Kathieisawyer Chris Iebbetts , Staci Visoo . C out In The Luounfiins ~ 1081-5562)‘is published by Mountain ‘Pride Media |r'ié.;. except , for: ‘a. combined July/Augustissue. The newspqaer j at 109 ‘South Wa'IoosldA\Ienw‘ jirt Bu1‘ngton._ A Our maifing add'es_,s_is1P0,_BoxT17_7, Bufir1gton.Vl'.i:O5402.1Our email address OTlfM@a_ol,com :Bulk~i newspaper ', paid in 1hesubscrimion.rate‘is’iV$.20perveH. wilhinfheUnih°;dSlates. » © 1996,’ out in the Mountains. Statement of PIJTPQSE Thepumose of the':.Maun+1 tainsis toseiveas'"a\_i'oieetorles—.' bians. say men.‘l2iseXt1aIs; tens-—; gendered ‘ and our supporters irrvermo nt.*‘We the newspaper tbhefa. of! infonnation, supportfand affirm'a- tiomwealsosee QITMas‘ave-‘ hiole fore-eleb’r‘ation’__of 1he,good— ness and diversity of t_he_le‘sbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities. Editorial Policy We will consider for publication any material which broadens our understanding of our life- styles and of, each other. Views , and opinions appearing in the’ paper’ do not necessarily repre4 sent th,ose.ot,the staff. ,This.. paper cannot and will not en-_ ,dorse, any -e'andidates—{a,nd_ tions of‘ public 'offici.a1s‘fon.».’.' sues of in1por_tance.t6i lesbia_n”s,.. gay men,*bisex'uals. and Wewilt not5p'instisn'a’riy rnaterjal ‘anti-Semiticfiageist, ..¢lass‘ Read 0iTM ivionlzhly I. l % Editorial lt’s the Constitution, Stupid by Hugh Coyle We can all thank our lucky stars that despite all the political grandstanding going on this election year, our nation’s system of checks and balances has seen through the hateful smoke screens of our opponents and spoken out in favor of liberty and justice for all in this fair country. Miss Diana Ross can clear the stage; there’s a new set of Supremes that we’d all like to dance to for a while! The recent decision handed down by our nation’s highest court signals a new era in the gay and lesbian civil rights movement. , Those who seek to keep gays and lesbians themselves in check have been exposed as the prejudiced hypocrites they really are, and the Despite all of his accomplishments on behalf of the gay and lesbian movement (and granted, there have been a few), President Clinton V continues to miss the big opportunities to stand up for justice on A behalf of gays and lesbians. Instead, he has settled for what could be called “politically expedient,” meaning that he’ll take whatever position will get him re-elected in the fall. In other words, he’s not standing up for us; he’s standing up for himself. That didn’t bother me much on issues like the Colorado Amendment and the expulsion of HIV+ members of the Armed Forces. In each case, Clinton preferred to let the system of checks and balances do what it was intended to do, and in each case, that did come to pass. Though he didn’t take a leadership role on these issues, he did make his feelings known. » But now he has also made his feelings known on another Constitutional controversy: the so—called “Defense of Marriage Act.” Clinton’s has stated in no uncertain terms that he would sign the act if it came to his desk; He has said that he never die and never will favor the idea of same-sex marriages, though he can’t really (or would rather not) explain his reasons. Opponents of the “Defense of Marriage Act” have clearly demonstrated that such legislation once again violates the Constitution. Colorado’s Governor denounced a bill in his state’s legislature which would have prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriages, even if they were performed legally in another state. He called that proposal “mean—spirited,” and rightly labeled it the work of vicious and prejudiced minds. Why, then, is our President suddenly so blind to such prejudice? Why has he chosen instead to jump on the Republican bandwagon and shamelessly wave the banner of his own biased feelings? Furthermore, why has he stepped back from a prime opportunity to take the moral high ground and defend the Constitution of this country from political opportunists, and in so doing further support a group that has suffered from the misguided and narrow—minded attacks of right—wing extremists? These questions deeply trouble me as we move into the final stages of Election ‘96. President Clinton has actively sought the support of gay and lesbian groups around the country, and yet he now stands in opposition to us on a matter of national significance. Perhaps he should listen more closely to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court on Colorado’s Amendment 2. If he did, he might get a wake-up”call similar to the one he had posted during his campaign of 1992. This time, however, it’s not just the economy. It’s also the Constitution, stupid. V VOICES FROM THE MOUNTAINS: Let’s Get Married! by Joy D. Griffith What is so devastating about two peoples union of love being expressed through a lifetime commitment in a marriage contract? The marriage contract throughout early history was a civil union, and only in recent history has the church taken on marriage for sanctifrcation. Heterosexuals joined together in marriage for monetary reasons, and the homosexual marriage was for love. America is often quoted as being "a diverse, open society with ‘tolerance of homosexuality,"' but this tolerance is so defined by fear that many believe the "institution" of marriage will crumble by admitting homosexual unions. We have several religious groups openly and lovingly celebrating unions between same-sex partners: Congregationalists, Methodists, United Churches of Christ, Metropolitan Community Churches, Reformed Jews, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, and on and on. This "fear" of same-sex marriage invaded the Vermont State House of Representatives last month when the lawmakers were scared to death that some gay oralesbian couple might use the lack of gender-specific language to get a legal marriage license. Along with thesanctity of the church, we have an American Constitution defining the civil rights of our citizens, even though Americans in past history have withheld these all encompassing civil rights from the slaves and from women, and went so far as to prohibit inter-racial marriages. To state that "same-sex" marriages are “inherently incompatible with our culture's understanding of the institution" is to perpetuate the message that discrimination against homosexuals is acceptable and officially sanctioned. Marriages were established by citizenry laws for the union of a'couple, hence, it is not" alright to deny civil and equal rights to some minority groups in our American society. Stability and a healthy, nurturing environment for children cannot be identified for only one group in our society. Writers and legislators have a powerful influence over the formation of public opinion, and their "fears" can only promote the message that discrimination against people of a different sexual orientation is OK when they ask, "What will keep gay marriages together when individuals tire of each other?" Susan McKenzie MS. Licensed Psychologist—Master Experi'encea’_th_erapist specializing in the individual and relationship issues of Lesbian Women and Gay Men Quechee Narwicti Montpelier 8 it .2 25 S-{€533 -3} ..s My question: What will keep heterosexual marriages together when these individuals tire of each other? Shakespeare said, "Unkindness may do much, and his uvnkindness may taint my life, but never taint my love." There is continuous rhetoric against the "homosexual lifestyle“ defined by heterosexuals. They insist on tying our struggle to share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage to their definition of "the social devastation of the sexual revolution, easy divorce... being" fashionable again." There are lifetimes of same-sex couples in this country who have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees for joint insurance, joint parenting and adoption, inheritance, bereavement or sick leave to care for partners or children. We are working for the same rights that the heterosexual couple has automatically received. If marriage were only for people who could have children, then post—menopausal women should be denied the marriage contract and infertility should become a reason for divorce. If the American Constitution is considered by history as a "radical experiment," then our claim for equitable marriage rights is long overdue. We need to put away our misguided fears. Hatred grows from fear, and fear stems from ignorance. We need to put away the volumes of fear and ignorance about the homosexual and promote our concern for all the citizens of this nation. V /44¢a¢c'a€e¢ atlzecaaeuf Janet K. Brown, M. A., C.A. D.C. LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST - MASTER CERTIFIED ALCOHOL AND DRUG COUNSELOR Jean Townsend, M.A., L.C.M.H.C LICENSED CLINICAL MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR Milton, VT _ (802) 893-4816 Burlington, VT (802) 863-8162 Arcadia House V Elegant Accommodations PO Box 520 VI-lyde Park, VT 05655 V8OZ—888—9147 John Towne VEd Pepe Vlnnkeepers vs "