' ,4»,-« 24 — OUT IN THE MOUNTAINS — NOVEMBER 1997 Heaflhy Vermonters 2000 continucdfromfront jmgc two of the members attended only 2 ofthe meetings, and the gay rep- resentative attended only the task force*s initial meeting. Perhaps even more damaging, there was a lack of aggression in pursuing feedback and the perspectives of the broader glbt community. In the end, beyond declar- ing the current lack of existing health data for the glbt communi- ties ”a public health concern in and of itself” and recommending that the individual glbt communi- ties be evaluated as unique soci- etal entities, the task force crafted three recommendations informing the Healthy Vermonters 2000 document: Facilitate, promote, and as- l sess the education of Vermont*s health care providers and public health policy makers about homophobia, heterosexism, transphobia, and sexism within the context of culturally compe- tent health outreach and health care provision to the glbt commu- nities Influence Vermont lawmak- ers to reach parity and inclusion within Vermont's marriage laws to ensure thatsame sex couples have equal rights for domestic partner health insurance coverage and medical decision making on be- halfof same sex partners and chil- dren of same sex family units Include gender identity as being protected from discrimina- tion in hiring, insurance coverage, and health care access in Vermont's non—discrimination laws. The weakness of this output lies not in what has been pro- posed, but in what continues to be overlooked. Nowhere in the Healthy Vermonters 2000 docu- ment are there specific objectives addressing the prevention of HIV transmission among men who have sex with men. No mention is made of the deleterious impact on the mental and physical health of those living in a homophobic society, and of the impact of the stress and anxiety confronting glbt youth trapped in circumstances that remain unsafe. And the words "gay" and ”lesbian" sim- ply never appear. But it gets even worse. The Healthy Vermonters 2000 Report does include a section on HIV, and the most recent (1996) Progress Re- port presented 5 ”Objectives” for the year 2000: 1. Increase the percentage of sexu- ally active adolescents who use condoms to at least 75%. 2. Increase percentage of injection drug users in treatment programs to at least 50%. 3. Increase percentage of schools with HIV education to at least 95%. ’ 4. Increase percentage of primary care pro’viders who counsel pa- tients about HIV and sexually transmitted diseases to at least 75%. 5. Increase percentage of injection drug users and their partners re- ceiving education on preventing HIV to at least 75%. Feel invisible? With an en- tire section of the report devoted to HIV in Vermont, the only place gay men appear in this Progress Report is in the panels of the AIDS Quilt which provide a backdrop for the presentation of the HIV objectives. Being a gay man well beyond my adolescent years, I wonder reading this list of objec- tives if homophobia is endemic at the Department of Health. The Vermont Department of Health has an AIDS Program, headed now by Joshua Noble and previ- ously by Terje Anderson and Deborah Kutzko. Where were/ are their voices in shaping these objectives? How should this be ad- dressed? The task force is aware that much more can and needs to be done to truly address the Commissioner's goal of enhanc- ing the appropriateness and effec- tiveness of the Healthy Vermont- ers 2000 document. One of the more heartening recommenda- tions of the task force wasthat its members continue to meet beyond the deadline set for making recom- mendations to the Commissioner, in an effort to provide an im- proved context for later revisions of this or comparable documents. They are not empowered, how- ever, to spend state funds in con- structing outreach mechanisms to the state-wide community, and so will substantively depend on the initiative of our community in pro- viding guidance and direction to the task force. Input can be for- warded to the Office of Minority Health of the Vermont Depart- ment of Health at P.O. Box 70, Burlington 04502-0070. Our si- lence ensures only that we con- tinue to remain overlooked, un- considered and invisible. The Attorney General’s Response to Gay Marriage continued from front page — ”If the fundamental right to marry were expanded, as defendants suggest, it would have to encompass polygamy, group marriage and, perhaps, other forms of marriage presently deemed un- lawful.” — ”What is not debatable is the possible fluidity of any class premised upon sexual orientation. What would be the boundaries of such a class? Would having homosexual thoughts make one a homo- sexual? Would one or two experiences? There is no doubt that numer- ous persons ’experiment’ with homosexuality, bisexuality and hetero- sexuality. Unlike other ’suspect classes’ there is, at the very least, a component of choice as regards some persons who engage in homo- sexual conduct.” — "Vermont affords marriage to opposite-sex couples, in part, because of the biological differences between the sexes that are neces- sary to propagate the species. Vermont's laws do not classify based upon stereotypes or prejudices.” — "By authorizing only marriages of opposite-sex couples, the state furthers its interest in promoting marriage as a way to unite men and women.” —— ”The state has an interest in promoting child-rearing in a set- ting which provides both male and female role models.” —- ”The state has an interest in furthering the link between pro- creation and child-rearing." —-— ”The conception of marriage as a precursor to raising a family will thus be diminished. In its place will come marriage as a tax status, a means to obtain economic benefits.” — ”The statehas an interest in preserving the institutional stabil- ity of marriage, especially when this institution is under attack as it is today. The Legislature could conceivably have concluded that expand- ing marriage to include same—sex unions would destabilize the institu- tion of marriage." — ”The use of sperm donors by lesbian couples and gesta- tional surrogacy by gay male couples could increase significantly. At present, there is a substantial ethical debate over the use of surrogacy contracts and sperm donors.” Renew or Subscribe to Out in the Molmtains Today! (details on page 12 and 18) gt. -.,.mmm CLUB TOAIT I65 CHURCH ITREET. BURLINGTON, VERMONT 85° P.M. FRIDAY. JANUAR? 9”‘, 1998 GREEN MOUNTAiN Gmrs INIUS .KDU) IKIE