How was Dean "forced" to sign the civil unions bill?

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

I keep hearing this, that the only reason Dean signed the gay civil unions bill is because he was "forced" to. This leads me to some questions...

What powerful lobby is it that goes around "forcing" governors to sign gay civil union bills? The tobacco lobby? The NRA? Was it for an episode of "Queer Legislation for the Straight Governor"? And what method did they use to "force" the governor to do this? Was he held at knifepoint? Was his wife held hostage?

All kidding aside, I honestly don't know the whole story, other than the fact that he signed the thing and gay couples in Vermont benefited as a result, and I have a hard time finding fault with that. So if this happened as the result of some kind of malfeasance, I don't know about it, and I welcome the information.

[NicoleM]

1. Vermont Supreme Court

is a pretty powerful lobby.

[PissedOffPollyana]

15. I also consider his national states' rights policy.

It makes it more probable (at least to me) that he was not necessarily for civil union that he has stated a preference for state's rights on the question of civil unions. Never mind that the states are teetering on the bring of the probability of a Constitutional amendment (only one more state with anti-c.u. needed to bring that about) banning civil unions. I applaud Dean for being agreeable about signing the legislation, but I am firmly convinced that he most likely would not have signed unless his hand was forced by VT Supreme Court (who outranked him). If Dean is strongly in support of GLBT equality (as some have asserted), he would at least avow national support for civil unions & GLBT adoption in his Issues section where people can see where he stands. I am not certain he is one of the 7 of the 9 who support adoption (can only assume so), since Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate with the courage and honesty to publicly announce his position for those looking in the logical place for it.

Let me say, briefly, why this is important. In states like Florida, GLBT people are not allowed to adopt. This has created situations where at-risk children are placed in gay & lesbian homes (generally when they have no other "straight" place for them), then pulled from the only families they have known if their health, emotional stability, etc improves. One boy here was placed in the home of a gay couple who have taken in exclusively children with HIV (BTW, FL named the award for exemplary foster care for this couple - Roger Lofton & Steve Croteau). They took such remarkable care of him that he no longer tests positive for HIV, so Florida has alerted the Loftons that they are actively seeking adoptive parents for him and plan to remove him from his home & family. THIS is the effect of lack of visibility of the issue.

Finally, if anyone would like to add their support for the Lofton family and others like them who have filed a suit through the ACLU, they can do so at http://www.LetHimStay.com

[dsc]

17. I can see why you don't have a citation to back up your facts

since your facts are not facts. First, the amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions hasn't even made it out of Congress yet much less getting all but one state needed to enact it. You have confused state's mini DOMA'a with a constitutional amendment.

Second, the constitution of VT can be amended. Maybe you should ask the people at the end of your link how or you can go here. http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html#Section72

Had you bothered to so some basic research (gasp) you would have found out that Vermont was the second state, after New Jersey to permit joint adoption by lesbians and gays. I will grant you that adoption isn't specifically mentioned but child custody is. And, just how pray tell, are a gay couple to get joint custody of a child without some form of adoption? My source for the joint adoption is Out in the Mountains (the gay and lesbian newspaper of record in VT their claim not mine). http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm

Note the bio that is supplied by them not Dean for the interview.

[PissedOffPollyana]

26. Thanks for the links, but I think you misinterpret my point

I am not saying that an amendment IS passed, just possible and based on the # states rushing to pass DOMA legislation, it leaves a door open that should not be. THAT is the point. A policy of states' rights does not speak highly for Dr. Dean's support of policies that he has already put into practice in his Gov. administration. It speaks, (again) at least to ME, of a lack of support of his own regional actions if he were to lead at the national level.

I said that I appreciate what Dean has done in VT for GLBT people. But, my point is that he has not extended the thrust of that record toward his stated positions on his website's Issues section. Additionally, if he does support adoption when speaking to gay & lesbian audiences, shouldn't he support it with every audience?

Child custody is a horse of a completely different color, BTW. That generally pre-supposes that parental rights already exist. I appreciate the stance, but it is not really the same.

I have done a fair amount of reading on ALL the candidates (I'm betting far more than many) , by reading at least every Issues section in its entirety. I have to assume that if a candidate actually supports or plans to implement a policy, they would have the decency to put it on their platform (aren't I a stickler for thoroughness and honesty). I am just trying to get to the bottom of why he is leaving such important issues off his official statements of policy if he does indeed support them after all. Why should I automatically assume that he would support LGBT adoption nationally when he does not extend other state policies like civil unions?

Though you seem well-versed in what the Doc did in VT, I am interested what the candidates actually say they will do as President. I think that's slightly important to the equasion, don't you? Am I glad that VT has progressive GLBT policies? Sure, but only if that results in progressive policies on their Gov.'s national campaign. Otherwise, they are just irrelevant facts that can be used to try to obscure a not-so-progressive national campaign platform.

[NashVegas]

36. Signing Popular Legislation Is Easy

Signing legislation you'd rather not deal with because it's a political hot potato, and then going from town to town to town to explain why, face to face, is something altogether different.

[paulk]

37. John Kerry also supports gay adoption

link:

http://www.wral.com/politics/2653091/detail.html

[Cheswick2.0]

39. that is the same kind of unfair thinking that leads many feminists

to say they won't vote for DK. His record on women's rights is abominable. However he gave a very honest statement about why and how his view has changed. I take him at his word.

[slinkerwink]

2. basically, the VT court said that vermont had to have civil unions

and Dean signed the civil unions bill behind closed doors. He didn't want to attract a lot of attention from the fundies for signing the bill. He wore a kevlar vest most of the time he was out because of the death threats he was getting.

[Myra]

5. Actually I thought he handled that well.

Did what needed to be done without giving photo op
ammo to the right.

[Killarney]

3. I don't think he was "forced" per say

because he agreed with it. To be forced, by definition I think you have to be doing something you don't want to do. KWIM? :)

[bluestateguy]

4. it was never part of his agenda

When the Supreme Court orders you to do something you do it.

[slinkerwink]

6. Vermont supreme court......not the SCOTUS

[wyldwolf]

7. He was "forced" to make a choice...

Dean had no choice but to accept such a bill. In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative."

Given that choice, Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time. He did encourage the legislature to pass a civil unions bill. But the alternative he averted was legalizing gay marriage, not preventing gay domestic partnerships.

Many supporters of the bill criticized Dean for signing it "in the closet," in private and without a ceremony.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086952

That action has prompted a few reporters to ask Dean about his support for such a law at the national level. His answer has been virtually the same in all cases -- he is opposed. Why would he oppose a national law that he felt justified in endorsing for his state? Because he apparently believes that the federal government has no right to intervene in state decision-making.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8387

..meaning that if it fine with Dean is one state recognizes gay people as legal partners but another doesn't!

Essentially, it wasn't something he was for. He was made to extend benefits to gays and chose what he found to be the less offensive of the two choices.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

9. That works both ways

I would rather see a law like that at the federal level too, but at the present time I just don't believe that all the states are ready for it. Those that are, however, like Massachusetts (sp.?), should be able to benefit from such a "state's rights" platform --- after all, if we're REALLY leaving it up to the states, and the state of Mass. wants to allow gays to marry, then all the state's rights people should have no problem with that --- although we all know they would.

[wyldwolf]

10. Forget the "states rights" cop-out answer for the moment...

and concentrate on the act itself.

If Dean had not been forced (yes, forced) to do this, he probably would not have done so (remember, he admitted gay marriage makes him nervous.)

What he, in effect, is saying is that he won't force other states to extend the same rights to gays as heteros have.

What if presidents of the past had not forced states to accept civil rights laws? Would we have had black/white bathrooms in one state but "uni-race" bathrooms in others?

Would African-Americans still be forced to sit in the back of the bus in some states?

The "states rights" things is a major cop-out, especially when we're dealing with a civil rights issue.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

14. That's what I'm saying

is that the "states' rights" issue is a non-starter in this, because the same people who scream "states' rights!!!" when it comes to things like having a six-ton replica of the ten commandments in a courthouse, suddenly want to get the federal government involved whenever another state exercises ITS right to enact a law that those people find "immoral". So I don't think "states rights" is a cop-out issue at all, as much as an issue that allows people to show what raging hypocrites they are.

[PissedOffPollyana]

18. Some weren't ready for interracial marriage either.

I am glad to see support for this issue here. But, I am disheartened to see people give in so easily for the sake of the irrational bigotry of a minority of Americans.

Over the years, some states weren't ready for integrated schools and a whole lot of things that were right. The very purpose of the federal government is to legislate these sorts of progressive policies which protect the rights of minorities against the passions and fear of change of mob-rule. They are there to do what is right and supercede discriminatory practices by the masses, not pander to or be apologists & enablers to them.

Every last one of us should be pro same-sex marriage. We can all agree that we are for the idea of equality for all Americans; it's time to practice what we preach.

[wyldwolf]

21. You forget one thing...

... in your wonderfully reasoned and constructed response, you forget that some Dean supporters will illogically rationalize his actions even when they know those actions were wrong.

[dsc]

19. flat out false

The constitution could have been amended. And Dean voiced support from day 1 of that decision.

[wyldwolf]

20. Interesting...

... I give links to support my post... you just deny the facts based on your opinion.

Sure, the state constitution could have been amended, but why would Dean (or anyone) go to such lengths to defy the state supreme court?

Fact is, he was given a choice and he took the safest route. There is no indication he would have ever even proposed or signed acivil unions bill at all had the courts not given him the directive.

And of course he supported it - what politician wouldn't support an action he/she was taking - even when they are forced to take it?

[dsc]

24. Not only have I posted this link close to a dozen times

It appears not once, but twice in this very thread (posts 13 and 17 had you even bothered to look). Here it is again if you can be bothered to click (or do I have to do that for you too?)http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html#Section72

Next time you take such a snotty tone you might actually bother to see if the thing you are accusing me of is actually true.

[wyldwolf]

25. Snotty?

1. I haven't followed your posting career...

2. Your post #13 in no way shows Dean "voiced support from day 1 of that decision." Maybe he did, but again, of course he would - any politician (once they've been given a directive by the courts) will "support" the actions of which they are being required to take - especially if not doing so would alienated his base.

And, of course, gay marriage makes Dean nervous (although he stretched the truth a little - it doesn't make everyone nervous)

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

28. bitch them out?

I correctly pointed out a fact in your direct reply to me. How was that "bitching out?"

yes I do think you should read all of a person's posts in a given thread that has realatively few posts before you bitch them out for not having provided a link.

I disagree. I only respond to one reply at a time.

[dsc]

29. How was this true?

... I give links to support my post... you just deny the facts based on your opinion

In this very thread, posted before I posted what I did, I posted that link you claimed I didn't. That isn't true.

[wyldwolf]

30. As I said before...

I base my replies to people on what they have posted in direct reply to me.

As I said before, I don't base my replies on the poster's posting history in the same thread or otherwise.

I know you believe one should be aware of what someone has already posted in the past.

[PissedOffPollyana]

32. Yeah, I love that quote... it's so pertinent.

I have to agree with you whole-heartedly. Even in a more conservatively leaning state, a Dem. Gov. who took on his own Supreme Court to defy the legal and civil rights of gays & lesbians would be signing his/her political death warrant within the party. Sure, the option exists, but that does not mean that Dean is a champion of civil rights to not have done so. The fact remains that Dr. Dean's state extends rights to gays & lesbians that he does not include in his national platform. There is nothing that can rationalize that away, no snarky offering of links that can change that simple fact.

It opens up a two-fold choice in my opinion:
1) political cowardice
2) lack of support for the VT state positions

What other choices are there when one reads his GLBT platform? If they are part of the platform, why aren't they there where they can be seen?

[dsc]

34. The then Democratic governor of Alaska

is now running for Senate and with full party support. The then governor of Hawaii was term limited out (I think).

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

8. Fair enough

I am now readying myself for the shitstorm of negative replies I'm sure I have coming.

[Killarney]

11. Couldn't he have overturned if he wanted?

I thought his choices were: marriage, civil unions, or overturn SC decision. Because those are the three choices that the Mass. legislature has now, so I assumed that was the same situation Dean was in. I could be wrong, though.

If those were indeed his three choices, then he went the moderate route. Marriage would have been liberal. Overturning (which is what Romney wants to do in Mass.) would have been conservative.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

12. That's my view

Also, at the risk of being unpopular, one of the reasons he gave for civil unions rather than marriage was that he felt that it's not the state's position to tell the church who they can or can't marry. I am a devout atheist, and no one loves the separation of church and state more than me, but I have to concede that that cuts both ways. The state has to stay out of the church's hair and vice versa, in my opinion.

[PissedOffPollyana]

31. Yes, but marriage is a legal status.

I am married, yet no church has given the seal of approval to my husband & I. If I were still a Catholic, we would not be able to marry in the church anyway, unless Jim (who was brought up Baptist) was willing to agree to a whole lot of compromise to the church. My brother (the Father.. he's a priest) was very clear about it and could not marry us when the time came. Guess it doesn't matter, since we are both atheists and would probably not have or want the "ok" from any religious body anyway.

Let's put it this way, if you are married by, say, a priest and do not file the appropriate paperwork, are you married? No. The church may say so, but they do not decide that in the legal sense. If you are married by a judge, a ship's captain or other secular party, filing the appropriate paperwork with the state, you are still married whether a man of any cloth blesses the union or not. If the church has no say in opp.-sex unions, why should they in same-sex unless we are just looking for a reason to disallow what makes us (though not me) uncomfortable.

The church is a straw man IMO and is being used to rationalize and provide an excuse to keep discriminating against people who (by the nature of our laws and stated equality for ALL, not just "hets") deserve the right to marry their partners. Otherwise, we are not equal.

[dsc]

13. The short answer is he wasn't

The people who repeatedly tell stories they like about Dean keep pretending he was but he really wasn't. First to give them some credit where credit is due there is a grain of truth to what they said. The VT Supreme Court, every member of which had been appointed by Dean BTW, unamiously ruled that gays had to be given either Civil Unions or marriage. So sounds like they are right. Well as Hertz would say, not exactly.

First VT wasn't the first state whose Supreme Court so ruled. Hawaii's was. So where is Hawaii's Civil Union Act then you ask? The Constitution was amended (for the first time in the history of the state it must be noted). This in the most overwhelmingly Democratic state in the nation outside the South. Hawaii has never had a Republican Senator, has had a Republican House member for only 6 years of its entire history as a state, and a Republican governor only twice in its history. Yet, the Constitution got amended and no gay marriage no civil unions. VT wasn't even the second state with such a decision. That was Alaska. Different state, same story. Constitution was amended no gay marriage no gay civil unions. Then came VT. Different state, same decision, different story. We got civil unions.

So maybe Vermont doesn't allow its Constitution to be amended. Well, no. The following link explains just how the constitution of Vermont can be amended.

http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html#Section72

At the biennial session of the General Assembly of this State which convenes in A.D. 1975, and at the biennial session convening every fourth year thereafter, the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may propose amendments to this Constitution, with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives with the amendment as proposed by the Senate. A proposed amendment so adopted by the Senate and concurred in by the House of Representatives shall be referred to the next biennial session of the General Assembly; and if at that last session a majority of the members of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives concur in the proposed amendment, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit the proposal directly to the voters of the state. Any proposed amendment submitted to the voters of the state in accordance with this section which is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon shall become part of the Constitution of this State.

Prior to the submission of a proposed amendment to a vote in accordance with this section, public notice of the proposed amendment shall be given by proclamation of the Governor.

The General Assembly shall provide for the manner of voting on amendments proposed under this section, and shall enact legislation to carry the provisions of this section into effect.

end of quote

For the record the decision was handed down in December of 1999. That is 24 years after 1975. And thus an amendment could have been proposed in 1999. Only one step required a super majority (2/3) and that was a step which proposed the amendment. At the time Civil Unions polled at 44% at best and marriage at 33%. I do not pretend for a minute that I can assure you that the constitution of Vermont would have been amended had Dean acted differently. But I must say that the evidence it wouldn't have been is underwhelming. Both Hawaii and Vermont are fairly liberal states in regards to gays. Before this bill passed it would have been hard to seperate VT from HI on this issue. Yet over 60% of the people voted to amend the constitution. I think the idea it would have been impossible for Dean to propose a study as pressure built to amend the constitution (that is the defintion of forced to do something) is very tenuous. Again, I am not Ms. Cleo. I can't say with certainty that the Senate would have gone along with amending the constitution. But anyone who claims they can say they wouldn't have with any certainty is about a straight forward as she is.

[ozone_man]

38. Thanks for clearing this up.

Even though I'm in Vermont, I was not aware of some of these constitutional details. I was going to comment that I thought Dean had appointed these judges, but wasn't sure if some were from Kunin era. Looks like you have answered my question.

"The VT Supreme Court, every member of which had been appointed by Dean BTW,"

Thanks also LittleDannySlowHorse. Dean made a courageous decision from my view, and I think gays in Vermont have tremendous support for him.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. i am gay

but i think the whole gay marriage thing is ridiculously divisive..most people dont agree that gay people should get marriage rights and personally i dont care...i thought the ENDA act was far more important and that was not passed...i think the right is making this more of an issue than it really is

[Myra]

23. That's interesting to hear your take on it lionesspriyanka

'Cause I think the right is using it as a wedge issue.
Selectively.
Hammering Dems with it but not Bush of course.

[killbotfactory]

22. You can't really force someone to sign a bill they support...

This is a stupid line of attack ment to undermine an issue where Dean stuck to his guns despite the polls, and won reelection despire a massive hate campaign aimed at him.

[arewethereyet]

33. it was all those NRA guys holding guns on him doing that

while he was endorsing them. As luck would have it, they were not watching too closely when the Queer Legislators for a Gayer Vermont snuck that other paper in the stack to sign.

He was just hoping to get out the room alive so he could go help IBM ravage the economy.

Come on it was in all the papers, didn't you see it ?

[IronLionZion]

35. His conscience made him do it

why shouldn't they have civil union? That's like saying conservative christians should not get married because they are immoral to some people. (Taliban?)