Out in the Mountains

gmwdf . i

 

  <  ters Leltllayi eiixpliorelfriew ways toiact up at Febriuary’s

.« .<-61‘

 

“Winter is a Drag” Ball, a fundraiser for Vermont CARES. _

by Paul Olsen ' -

Amber and Marguerite LeMay, The Lucy and
Ethel (or Fred and Barney?) of Vermont drag queens.
Two tall girls that make Attorney General Janet Reno

§'?Tiii5‘i)i’l§§1‘Av3lili»,:“'C3't1ti<’:.i'.$Having performed at Gay Pride, the

“Winter is a Drag" Ball, and I35 Pearl, they’ve devel-
oped a reputation for their well—rehearsed shtick, big
hair, fabulous sense of fashion, and support for a vari-

ety of charitable catrses.

In celebration of April Fools Day, Amber and
Marguerite LeMay (a.k.a. Bob Bolyard and Michael
Hayes) agreed to answer a series of questions for Out

If; infltc 7/l/I_J"()1tI1tqtiIi.r. .'

OITM: When did the Sisters LeMay first appear in
pubhc?

Amber: Appear or perform‘?

Marguerite: Don’t mind her. The Sisters’ LcMay debut

‘occurred on New *Yc‘ar’s,Eve,' 1992, at the Sheraton .

Burlington for the big VGSA party.’

' Amber: Did we get lucky that night‘?

Marguerite: No, Amber.
Amber: Everyone else did! I ' —

.. '0ITM,’£‘iA.Al‘C. you transves'ti»tes, cross—drcssers, or drag

queens?

Amber: Are you ajournalist, a gadfly, or hack writer?"

Marguerite: Amber, behave. (An aside to the

' interviewer)Remember, Iflm the nice one.

--Amber: Wciare Cl1lCl’lfjl~lnCrS: No labels are needed.

_Besidcs, you ‘forgot “female illoooooooosionist.”
' ' ‘Marguerite: And were fun, damnitall!

 How long does it take youto get in drag‘?
“tier-ityer‘ H"o’_w«mu_chi_t_irrr_e"<lo we have?’ "

 A‘nl'be}:‘ '1 1' it’s achoice of looking bcatlt;jt‘ttt orbcirig on‘

 ‘stage 'oni_time.,I’1n ontstage.  _ _ >_
 ' OITM:.>Yo,u must be‘pcrpcti:i_ally late. ; _ . .
1 ".Miargueri_te: Obvit)usly."'I'n one’ 'of'our shows we applied

our makc—up and wigs in front oifyvthe audience while
singing“:Ma'scara" from “La Aux Folles.“
Amber: If the audience’is-—focusi_ng on your eye shzidow,
they ain’t laughing at your jokes! f
Marguerite: No. They’re laughing. at YOUR eye
shadow!

Amber; Oh well, a cheap laugh is still a laugh.
Marguerite: No one knows that better than Amber.
OITM: At Pride Day you were criticized by some
lesbians, for referring to yourselves as “female
impaired.” How do you respond to this criticism?

Marguerite: Well, take a look at us!

Amber: Should we be considered vaginally challenged?
Marguerite: Oh Amber...., 

Amber: Attackediffcir‘otinuieforlslesisnessi? '
Marguerite: Amber!

Amber: Just more labels!

OITM: If Ben & Jerry’s named an ice cream flavor
after the Sisters LeMay, what would it be called?
Marguerite: Nutty LeMayple Fruitcake.

OITM: And what would be in it‘?

Amber: Cherie Tartt-’s tongue.

OITM: How do you respond ‘to the rumors regarding
the marriage of Cherie Tartt and Fred Tuttle?
Amber: Does the name Anna Nicole Smith ring a bell‘?
Marguerite: Let’s face it, that media maniac knows
how to get what she wants.

Amber: And she got a movie deal out of 01’ Fred. And
being the gracious person she is, she hired us to be
extras in the movie.

Marguerite: Amber plays the younger Cherie Tartt.
Amber: And Marguerite was Cheric’s body double
during the sex scenes.

OITM: A bill prohibiting gay marriage (H.182) in
Vermont has been introduced in the Vermont legislature.
What are your thoughts on gay marriage‘?

Amber: Gay marriage? Sounds like an oxymoron to ‘'

me. . .
Marguerite: As opposed to the regular moronsiyou
date, Amber‘? ' V

Amber: While understand some peoples’ objection
to gay marriages for religious reasons, society has to
find a wayto acknowledge andyaffirm commitments

. between two people - no matter whatsex either of them
5 is. Sex should have nothing to do with it.

Marguerite: Sounds lil<eLMY dates, now.

* OITM: Doyou have anything‘ else, other than a song,

you’d like to share with the feaders of OITM‘?
Amber:_Well, we do wa_nt__to thank the support our
many fans liavegivcn us over the years.

Marguerite: And we’ll be appearing at the Pride
celebration in Burlington this year on June 21.
Amber: And, you’re reading it here first, the Sisters
LeMay are negotiating with a local theater company to
appear in a real stage musical- probably in late July or
early August.

Marguerite: Stay tuned! V

Page 12

Legal Briefs:

”Unofficial” Parents Beware
by Susan Murray and Beth Robinson

On February 28 in the case of Yitchenal v. Dexter, the
Vemront Supreme Court issued a decision which affects a
wide variety of Vermont families with children, including
gay and lesbian families. .

The Court decided that a parent who has lived with,
cared for, and helped raise a child has no legal right to
custody or visitation with that child (and the child has no
right to continue to have contact with that parent) if the
parent if not a biological parent or a legal adoptive parent.
The case highlights the vulnerability of gay and lesbian fami-
lies who lack the legal protections taken for granted by so
many others.

The case: The allegations considered by the Supreme
Court were as follows: Christine Titchenal and Diane Dexter
began their relationship in 1985. A few years later, they de-
cided to have a child. In July of 1991, Diane adopted a new-
born baby girl, whom the women named Sarah Ruth Dex-
ter—Trtchenal. Chris did not seek to ccradopt Sarah because
both parties believed that Vemtont’s adoption law at the time
would not have allowed them to become adoptive parents
together.

Christine and Diane held themselves out to the world
as Sarah’s parents, and Sarah called one of them “Mama
Chris” and the other “Mama Di.” For the first three and a
half years of Sarah’s life, Chris cared for the child approxi-

mately 65% of the time.

The couple’s relationship eventually faltered, and in

‘ November of 1994, Diane moved out of their home, taking

Sarah with her. For the first five months following this sepa-
ration, Sarah stayed with Chris from Wednesday afternoons
to Friday evenings. ‘

In the spring of 1995, however, Diane severely cur-
tailed Sarah’s contact with “Mama Chris,” and refused
Christine’s offer of financial (i.e. “child”) support.

On the basis of these alleged facts, Chris asked the.

trial court to protect her relationship with Sarah by awarding
her some visitation time with the girl. The trial court refused
to even consider the request, concluding that it simply had
no authority to award visitation to a party who is neither an

~' adoptive nor a ‘biological parent.

The decision: On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court
confimted that Chris had no legal right to visit with Sarah,
and that the trial court’s decision not to consider her request
for visitation was not “cruel or shocking to the average person’s
conception of justice.” The Supreme Court pointed out that
non-biological partners in same-sex relationships can pro-
tect their relationships with their children by legally adopt-
ing them. The court was not swayed by the argument that the
parties did not realize that Chris could adopt under Vermont’s
adoption law because the Supreme Court had allowed such
adoptions before Diane and Christine broke up.

What it means: For anyone co-parentinga child with
a biological or adoptive parent, the lesson of the Tito/izenal
case is clear: Adopt the child as soon as /)().t‘.Yll7l€. That is the
only sure-fire way to assure that each parcnt’s relationship
with the child will be respected by the courts if the parents
break up and one tries to deny or undermine the other parent’s
relationship with the child.

, ‘If adoption is not an option, then there is no lail—safc
way for the “non—legal” parent, gay or straight, to protect his

_.or her relationship with the child. By marrying (if possible)

or by signing a written joint parenting agreement, the non-
legal parent might be able to shore up his or her position.
However, based on the Court’s reasoning in the Yitclzénal
case, manying or signing an agreement may not really change
the situation.

In the end, if the law does not recognize, respect, and
protect our families, the burden is on each of us to respect
them ourselves, difficult as that may be, and to aflinn the
reality and significance of our own past, present, and future
family relationships.V

Susan Murray and Beth Rol2in.ron are attorneys at Langrock Sperry
& Wool in Mitldlcbmy and Burlington, whose prc1cIice.t' include
L’H1])l()_Y/l1(3l1l i.rsue.s', family /natteirs, estate planning, personal injury
and worker ‘s compensation cares, and general civil litigation. This
columnfccitures timely information about legal issues‘ oj'intcre.rt to
our community. We hope to provide information about importrtnt
laws and court cases that may affect our rights, as well as practical
nuts and bolts advice for protecting ourrelve.\‘ and our falizilicx. If

you ’d like to see us covera particular topic, please feel free to write -

OITM or call us at 388-6356. ’