4 1 out in the Mountains |Augq0st 2000 .= news = Ruth Dwyer: The UITM Interview BY PAUL OLSEN Optimistic that she will defeat Bill Meub in the September 12 GOP gubernato- rial primary, Ruth Dwyer has been traveling the state cam- paigning against incumbent Gov. Howard Dean. Dwyer, 42, served in the Vermont House of Representatives from 1994- 1998 and was the Republican nominee for Governor in 1998. Her campaign calls for repeal of Act 60, school choice, safer roads and bridges, responsible environmentalism, and increased consumer choice in health care. Campaigning on a theme of “listening to Vermont,” Dwyer has held town meetings throughout the state to hear just what the concerns of Vennonters are. Her campaign literature emphasizes “Community, Common Sense and Fairness.” In July, Dwyer met with Out in the Mountains and discussed a number of issues of specific concern to Vermont’s gay, les- bian, bisexual and transgen- dered community. Excerpts from the interview: 01 TM: Why should gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgen- dered Vermonters support your candidacy for Governor? Dwyer: The issues that affect all Vermonters like health care, property taxes, education, and permit issues affect gays and lesbians as well as they do everybody else. My concern is that they should be focused on the issues that affect them everyday financial- ly and businesswise because clearly that is what we all think about during the day, not cul- tural issues. OITM: As Governor would you appoint openly gay men and lesbians to the Legislature, state commissions, and/or your Cabinet? . Dwyer: I don’t think that would be criteria for me. It would be the skills and what talent they have and what expe- rience they have. I would never look at that as a determining factor for anybody. OITM: In the state budget, $12,000 has been provided to Outright Vermont for support services for gay and lesbian youth. As Governor, what would your position be on this funding? Dwyer: I don’t agree with that. To me, that would be the same as appropriating money to the N.R.A. or to Right to Life or any other private group to advocate a position. I don’t think it is appropriate for tax- payer money to be given to any private group for any reason. I would just have a policy that nospecial interest group gets taxpayer money. They should raise their own private funds and do advocating based on that. OITM: At a recent debate you indicated that you posted a “Take Back Vermont” sign at your farm in Thetford. Who is it that you’d like to take Vermont back from? Dwyer: I think the “Take Back Vermont” slogan is to give Vermont back to the peo- ple. The press has given the impression that people are putting them up just because of the civil union issue and I don’t find that at all. Their whole feeling is that two years ago we wanted to take back Vermont for the people because we felt the government was too intru- sive. Two years later, we feel it is even more intrusive and we want Vermont to go back to the people so that the peoples’ voices govern rather than the court and rather than the Legislature promoting a politi- cal agenda that maybe isn’t what the people want. OITM: Had you been Governor in 1992, what would your position have been on leg- islation prohibiting sexual ori- entation based discrimination in housing, employment, credit and public accommodations? Dwyer: I’ve never read the bill, so I don’t know what’s in it, but I don’t think we should ever discriminate for any rea- son. We should have the same standards for everybody and I assume that’s what the law says. OITM: What role, if any, do ' you think homophobia played in the civil union debate? Dwyer: As far as legislators are concerned, I think very lit- tle. I don’t think that was a big ‘issue for most legislators at all. They were much more wrapped up in the Constitution, some of them cared about what their constituents wanted and that’s what they were going to do, and some had a real emo- tional involvement because of a family member. For the vast majority of peo- ple that I talk to out there, that is not an issue for them. The issue that I hear, Take Back Vermont and what does that mean to people, is not an expression of homophobia in any way. What it is is that peo- ple feel that they truly didn’t have a voice. They should have been able to vote on it like they did in California and Hawaii and that it was an issue that the [Supreme] Court dictated and they didn’t want to be excluded from that process and they feel that they were. OITM: You’ve called for repeal of Vermont’s new civil union law. What are your con- cerns with the new law? Dwyer: If the message in November is clearly that the voters want it repealed, then I think that is what we should do and I still believe we should go forward with the [constitution- al amendment] process that lets them decide the issue. I don’t think you can repeal the law and say that everything is going to be the way it was before. You are still going to have to have that dialogue and have a process that goes for- ward where people finally make a decision. You can start from scratch and do what I think we should have done in the first place, which is go ahead with the constitutional amendment process and let the people vote and decide. 0ITM: Like gay marriage, another contentious social issue is abortion. Polls consis- tently show that the majority of Vermonters support abortion rights. If the majority of Vermonters were to support a constitutional amendment sup- porting freedom of choice, would you change your posi- tion on abortion? Dwyer: No. The majority of Vermonters are going to do what the majority of Vermonters are going to do. My personal position is that I need to be honest about it. I’ve always have been. I don’t pre- tend that a majority of Vermonters agree with me. I know they don’t. OITM: The State Senate considered and rejected a con- .stitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. Should they have just passed it for the sake of giving Vermonters an opportunity to vote on the issue? WE OPEN THE DOORS TO HOMES ALL OVER VERMONT! VERMONT DEVELOPMENT 3crr01r UNION YOUR COMMUNITY FINANCIAL RESOURCE Mortgages For People, Not For [Profit 1-800-865—VDCU(8328) Dwyer: I think they should have passed it for no other rea- son than the fact that I don’t think the mandate from the [Supreme] Court was constitu- tional. The only way to deal with that would have been to start the amendment process. I truly believe the Court would have respected that and would not have taken the case back and changed its decision. I think that would have been the healthier way to go. OITM: Specifically, which benefits do you think that com- mitted gay and lesbian couples should not be entitled to? Dwyer: I have absolutely no problem with people making medical, funeral, or inheritance decisions. People do that now. I’m not against that. But the people were very clear in say- ing that we don’t want gay marriage and we don’t want the institution of marriage to have a counterpart. The new law is very deceptive because it attempts to be marriage only they use two or three different words so that it is just a "little different and is separate but equal. Clearly it is as close as you can get [to marriage] and I just think that is deceptive and it goes against what people were saying they wanted. OITM: Approximately six Town Clerks have indicated that they will refuse to issue civil union licenses to gay and lesbian couples. If you were denied a marriage license because you are divorced, would you feel discriminated against? Divorce and remar- riage run counter to some reli- gions. Dwyer: Probably. I have never thought about it. If that violated that Town Clerk’s reli- gious principles I would respect the fact that she would- T°I”5. Y.‘-‘tfternoo :~1*f“.‘d. .l?Y'?°¥FP»%§ . ,o.noy.1t¢a. fofs Q68. ; I 802.763,?‘-5'A3.9e§'