Did not deal with any of the issues that the senate had going and limited his dealing with them on budget alone.
There were enough votes committed to pass the bill before Dean decided it would be advantageous to him to make his statement.
As pointed out by the Bill Lippert again, this bill was up for passage in 1991, it was in the legisature in 1991.
The Civil Rights Bill will be introduced into the legislature once again this biennium. The Vermont Coalition of Lesbians and Gay Men will be holding a Steering Committee meeting to help chart the course of this bill. Information on other bills of interest will also be passed on at these meeting. The Steering Committee meetings will be held on Tuesday evenings at 7:00 p.m. at the A.C.L.U. office on State Street in Montpelier.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1991/02feb1991/civil.htmlA list of all of those who sponsored it alone prior to Deans speech of January 7, 92, this does not include others who support the bill, but is a list of all the legislators sponsoring it when it was first introduced, a year propr to Deans speech in January of 1991:
Since the bill was simultaneously introduced into both the House and Senate, both committees need to know there is support. Also, as the bill passes from one chamber to the other, we will have already built a base of support.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee:
Chair: Sally Fox, D-Essex
Orlando Campbell, R- Manchester
David Clarkson, D-Newfane
Brian Pendleton, D-Proctor
Ruth Stokes, D-Williston
Benoit Blais, D-Derby
Thomas Alderman, D-Middlebury
John Freidin, D-New Haven
Peter Mallary, D-Newbury
Mary Sullivan, D-Burlington
Particia Welch, R-Springfield
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Chair: John Bloomer, R-Rutland
David Wolk, D-Rutland
Mary Just Skinner, D-Washington
Stephen Webster, R-Orange
Jan Backus, D-Windham
J. Dennis Delany, R -Chittenden
It is also important to give ongoing support to the sponsors of the bill. They will be bringing the bill up for discussion in party caucuses and with their peers. Our supporters will also be hearing from our opposition; a friendly voice will be welcomed.
Sponsors - House:
Vi Luginbuhl, R-South Burlington
Alice Bassett, D-Burlington
Terry Bouricius, PC-Burlington
Lovenia Bright, D-South Burlington
Sean Campbell, D-Rockingham
Nancy Chard, D-Brattleboro
Andy Christiansen, D-East Montpelier
Paul Cillo, D- Hardwick
David Clarkson, D-Newfane
Hamilton Davis, D-Burlington
David Deen, D-Westminster
David Larson, D- Wilmington
Doris Lingelbach, D- Thetford
Peg Martin, D- Middlebury
Curt McConnack, D-Rutland
Lisa O'Neil, R-Hartford
Jane Potvin, D-South Hero
Helen Riehle, R-Burlington
Charles Ross, D-Hinesburg
Inge Schaefer, R-Colchester
Ann Seibert, D-Norwich
Peter Shumlin, D-Putney
Tom Smith, PC-Burlington
Ron Squires, D-Guilford
Mary Sullivan, D-Burlington
Sponsors - Senate:
David Wolk, D-Rutland
Jan Backus, D-Windham
Mary Ann Carlson, D-Bennington
Sally Conrad, D-Chittenden
Edwin Granai, D-Chittenden
Althea Kroger, D-Chittenden
George Little, R-Chittenden
Richard McCormack, D- Windsor
Doug Racine, D-Chittenden
Elizabeth Ready, D-Addison
Cheryl Rivers, D- Windsor
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1992/02feb1992/update.htmlA reference to the fact that the gay and lebian community indicates that there is enough support to pass the bill in January of 1992, the same month that Dean decided to ask people to support it:
IT'S NOT OVER YET FOLKS!
While the 1991 legislature adjourned without taking any action on the civil rights bill, they still have next year to outlaw discrimination in Vermont. Two bills were introduced this year, one in the House, H.162 introduced by Rep. Vi Luginbuhl (R-So. Burlington) and one in the Senate, S.131 by Sen. David Wolk (D-Rutland County). Both would outlaw discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, insurance and banking procedures, and guarantee enforcement of existing domestic abuse laws:
We made the tactical decision to start in the Senate this time in order to provide the momentum needed to pass the bill to the House. We knew that we had the votes in the full Senate once we got the bill out of the committee. Unfortunately we didn't realize that of the 15 weeks available for committee time the Senate Judiciary Committee would spend 10 of them on DWI, 3 on proposals dealing with bail and depositions, and one to finsh up. So despite the support of three of the six committee members (Sens. Jan Backus, D-Windham Cty., David Wolk, D-Rutland Cty., Mary Just Skinner, D-Washington Cty.) we were unable to get the committee to spend the one to tow days necessary to work on the bill.
While disappointed, we were not discouraged. Though the hard work of Keith Goslant, Holly Perdue, Rep. Ron Squires and others in the Lesbian/Gay community, I am confident that we have the votes to get the bill out of committee and passed by the Senate when the legislature reconvenes in January.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1991/0708July_Aug1991/civil.htmlDeans entire comment regarding the bill in his state of the state address:
"I also ask this General Assembly to continue Vermont's strong tradition of civil rights by passing the gay rights bill so that no group of Vermonters suffers from bigotry and intolerance."
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1992/02feb1992/dean.html31 words, count 'em. In the entire six years between Deans statement that he would not support such a bill in 1986.
What did Dean have to say between August, 1991 when he became governor, and January 7th when he asked people to pass the bill that already had 36 sponsors for over a year.
But lets check out the year that the bill that Dean finally made his 31 word statement about was drafted and FIRST introduced:
The first meeting of this legislative subcommittee was on November 23 in Worcester, Vermont. The two women and four men discussed the merits of introducing a state lesbian/gay civil rights bill, versus more support building at the community level. Some voiced concern that the recent ERA campaign has suggested to the lesbian/gay community that we cannot e4va a great deal of support from other liberal organizations; and that if we introduce legislation, we will need to be ready to do a great deal of work. Others felt that, given the results of the ERA campaign, the lesbian/gay community needs to come back strongly. Introducing the bill could show us where our support lies, allowing us to identify allies and attempt coalition building. Another person thought that the introduction of the bill could be the impetus for an extensive educational process for legislators.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1987/02feb1987/bill.htmlThis is the February 19976 issue of OITM adn it refers to the bill being drafted in NOVEMBER of the prior year 1986. This is the bill that Dean said he would not support.
Another article about the history of the bill from inception to passage.
Meanwhile the Human Rights Commission was holding hearings on hate crimes. On March 23, 1990, a hate crimes bill passed the House. In December, 1990, Ron Squires was elected to the House and became Vermont’s first openly gay legislator. As the 1991 session began, once again, an anti-discrimination bill was introduced to both the House and the Senate, but because the legislature was busy with other business, no action was taken on these bills before adjournment. This marked the fifth year that the GLBTQ community was working for passage of such a bill.
I came out as a gay man in the fall of 1991, but I’m ashamed to say I was oblivious to all of the gay rights activity of that time. In December, 1991, on another course outside of Montpelier, in Addison County Probate Court, Judge Chester Ketchum approved the first gay/lesbian second parent adoption in the state and one of the first in the country. Back in Montpelier on February 27, 1992, several hundred gay community supporters gathered for yet another public hearing on the civil rights bill. Finally, no doubt after our co-liaisons had spent many hours in conversation with legislators, in May, 1992, a momentous headline ran in OITM: “IT PASSED!” “This is the first time in my 38 years I feel like a real citizen,” said Keith Goslant of the accomplishment. The law took effect on July 1, 1992.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/mar2000/oe_before.htmReferences made to the many people who fought for the bill since its initial drafting in 1986.
Howard Dean is not mentioned.
First introduction of the bill for the first time:
State Coalition Approves L/G Rights Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty-five people at the Statewide Coalition meeting in South Royalton on Sunday, February 2, unanimously agreed to endorse the introduction of a Lesbian/Gay Civil Rights Bill into the legislature. The bill was introduced Tuesday, February 10 by Representative Micque Glitman in the General Assembly.
The Legislative Subcommittee of the Statewide Coalition drafted the bill using the sam e definitions used in the federal bill. The bill proposes to add the words, "affectional or sexual orientation" to existing anti-discrimination statues on employment, banking, insurance, credit, and housing. Statutes which don't specifically mention gender, such as the adoption statute, were not included in the scope of the bill.
Separate men's and women's meetings were held in the morning to debate the merits of introducing the bill now. During the separate and joint discussions, several people noted the need to distinguish general support for gay civil rights from support for a bill during this session. People discussed the certainty of renewed harassment, remobilization of ERA opposition groups, attacks in the press and abuse in the workplace and small towns.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1987/03mar1987/approval.htmlNotice this is 1987, Dean was Lt Governor...where was his support.
And the VERY FIRST ARTICLE published in OITM after the bill passed through both houses:
Final House approval came April 13th, on a vote of 73 to 67 with 9 members voting absent. Initially approved the previous Friday, by a vote of 71 to 58 with 20 members voting absent, the bill survived weekend efforts to derail it.
A wide margin of success (20-9) in passing the bill in the Senate earlier in April gave supporters encouragement for the fight in the House. Keith Goslant, Co-Liaison to the Governor, Statewide Coalition for Lesbians and Gay Men, said he was suprised that the bill was approved by such a margin. "It shows change is really happening. This gives me every indication this bill is going to pass this session. " Senate approval came after an hour of debate, during which Senator David Wolk, chief sponsor of the bill, remarked, "It is incumbent on us together to establish the highest standards and common expectations in Vermont that we will not tolerate prejudice."
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/1992/05may1992/AS these articles indicate, this bill had massive support, OITM mentions that it has enough support to pass as soon as the re-adjourns in January of 1992. Dean KNOWS it has enough support to pass when he makes its speech, all of its supporters know. Dean jumps onto an extremely popular bill that HE objected to 6 years earlier.
His support comes do late in the game that it makes no differnce at all what he says about it, which is damned little at the State of the State address, and was NON-EXISTANT in between August 14th, 1991 when he becomes governor, and January 6th when he makes his 31 word relatively weak statement about it that comes directly from the Democratic Party Handbook on Civil rights withe the word, fill in the name of appropriate city, county or state, in the blank.
As a matter of fact, there wass SO much support for the bill that those who were against it had to start resorting to sneding hate mail to the legislature with a pamplet written by one of the few in legislature who opposed it about the "homosexual lifestyle" (in the title of the book not my words, so you will not accuse me of using making negative insinuations about gays).
Dean is very clever, he withholds support for bills when they are not popular, stays silent when he does not know how the outcome will effect him politically, and gives lame excuses for doing so, likexnot wanting to discuss a case that is before the courts, or he does not want to support a gay civil rights bill but would prefer including their rights in a broader general civil rights bill.
No matter how you try to spin it. the statements of one gay in a letter to the editor of OITM, and a Vermont Legislator sums Dean up perfectly:
Governor Dean signed the bill because he knew that he had no choice – he was locked in because he said on day one that he did not support gay marriage but did support domestic partnerships. If Dean could have avoided this issue, he would have. Let us not kid ourselves.
If the people running Vermonters for Civil Unions want to pander to Governor Dean so they can retain access to the “man in charge,” so be it. But I will not support this travesty – I will work to smash the patriarchy and the privilege that goes with it. Then, and only then, will all people live in honor and dignity.
Governor Dean has proven that he’ll only support us when he’s trapped or it’s convenient. For example, his recent interview with OITM where he virtually begged the queer community to support him over Anthony Pollina is simple, pathetic fear-mongering. He feels trapped and he comes to us for help. It’s truly depressing to see the privileged elites of the GLBT community and the privileged elites of the Democratic Party falling all over themselves in an effort to suck up to one another. The Governor should be ashamed of himself for attempting to scare queer folk and progressives into voting for him.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul2000/letters.htmA number of other articles by gays in the gay media also take a similar stance on Dean, and this is a leading one:
Vote your hopes, not your fears
by Alexander Cockburn
The Nation magazine, October 30, 2000
Democrats of the stripe of Dean and Gore know how to talk the talk. They don't move a finger to expand human freedoms or opportunities, then boast that they alone are the bulwark against right-wing attacks on such freedoms and opportunities. After undermining choice and gay rights for much of his Congressional career, Gore now tells women and gays that he is the prime defender of choice and gay rights. At a gay event in Los Angeles, Dean claimed the hero's mantle for signing Vermont's civil union law giving gay couples the same state benefits as married couples. But he was never out front on this issue, moved only under direct order of the courts and then, in an act of consummate cowardice, nervously scribbled his signature to the law secluded from press or camera. So what does our Vermont parable add up to? Independent in name only, Sanders sold out to the Democratic machine long ago. He's no longer part of a movement. He's not a member of the Progressive Party and has not endorsed Pollina. In his reelection race for November, he's outflanked on both politics and gender, facing a Democrat to his left (Peter Diamondstone) and a transsexual moderate Republican (Karen Kerin). But the big story is not Sanders' dismal trajectory; it is that third-party politics in Vermont has moved out of his sad shadow and is changing the face of the state. The Progressives have also endorsed Nader.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/VoteHopes_NotFears.htmlthere are many other articles that also accuse Dean of fear mongering in this event.
The claims that are made that Dean took an enormous risk by signing this bill (the fact that he had ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE, is always denied by bringing up the bogus argument about the legislature voting to change the constitution was a danger looming over the head of Dean is bogus, as every year prior to the Baker v State case and the courts decision, opponents to gay rights tried to pass ANTI GAY MARRAIGE laws, and they all went down in flames).
Poll suggests limited fallout from gay bill
By JACK HOFFMAN Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER - A majority of Vermonters disapprove of the civil unions bill signed into law last week, but with the gubernatorial and legislative elections still six months away, it does not appear that the granting of legal benefits to same-gender couples is a defining campaign issue for most voters.
In a poll conducted last week by the Rutland Herald, Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and WCAX Channel 3 News, 52 percent said they disapproved of the civil unions bill, and 43 percent said they approved. Within those two categories, 16 expressed strong disapproval and 9 percent said they strongly approved.
The people surveyed, who identified themselves as registered voters, were asked how important the passage of the civil unions bill would be in determining their vote for governor.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/limitedfallout.htmlAbsolutely no effect on Dean for signing the bill and that was born out in November, when the electorate voted overwhelmingly for the two pro gay rights candidates with 60 percent of the vote going to either Dean or Pollina.
About a quarter (24 percent) said it would be important: 5 percent rated it as "very important," and 19 percent said it was "somewhat important."
Just over half (51 percent) said the issue wouldn't have much weight: 33 percent said it was "not very important," and 18 percent said it would not affect their vote at all. A quarter of the voters surveyed said they were not sure how passage of the civil unions bill would influence their choice in the governor's race.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/limitedfallout.htmlThe bottom line is that Dean ONLy gave support when it was safe or when he feels he can benefit from that support, and remains silent until he is certain of the political fallout.