Gov. Douglas vetoes gender discrimination bill
Toolbox
By Darren M. Allen Vermont Press Bureau - Published: May 18, 2006
MONTPELIER — Gov. James Douglas on Wednesday vetoed a bill that would have made Vermont the eighth state to outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.
"Discrimination in Vermont is unacceptable and our state has a long, healthy and proud history of acceptance and tolerance," Douglas said in his veto message on the measure.
The bill, he said, "makes significant revisions to all of Vermont's anti-discrimination laws in order to include, as a protected class, individuals who do not conform to sexual stereotypes … I am concerned that (the bill) did not receive the kind of careful scrutiny and study that would be expected prior to making major modifications to Vermont's antidiscrimination laws."
Douglas' veto was greeted with disappointment from one of the state's largest advocacy groups for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people, which pushed hard for the law.
"We're obviously disappointed that the governor has perhaps not taken the time he needed to learn about the bill," said Christopher Kauffman, head of the RU12? Community Center in Burlington. "The Legislature obviously felt very strongly that they wanted to offer these protections. Too bad the governor didn't also take this view."
Jason Gibbs, Douglas' press secretary, said the governor was unavailable for comment, but scoffed at the notion that the governor wasn't concerned about discrimination. Had the bill been better worded and afforded more time in the legislative process, the governor would have been more likely to sign it, Gibbs said.
As it is, the governor said in his veto message he believed current law already provided protections against discrimination based on gender expression.
"Our current anti-discrimination laws have, to date, provided protection to the individuals that would have been covered" under the bill, Douglas wrote. He said the attorney general's office has filed two complaints in which transgendered people claimed they were discriminated against. He added, however, that the definitions of identity expression in the bill "is ambiguous and potentially more far-reaching … and raises many questions with regards to its breadth, its implementation and its enforcement."
The bill was opposed by conservative groups who believed that it could have far-reaching implications in the state's schools.
"Although we wholeheartedly agree with the governor's premise that denying people a place to live or a job because of sexual identity has no place in Vermont, this legislation would have the unintended atmosphere of confusion, litigiousness, and false protection," said Steve Cable of Vermont Renewal, a Rutland-based organization that served as the legislation's primary foe. "This bill has the potential of creating an environment of 'affirmative action' for cross-dressers and transvestites, which is a concept we vehemently oppose."
The bill would have made it illegal to discriminate against someone who underwent a sex-change operation or who lives in a different gender. It would have applied to all areas of "public accommodation" such as hotels, offices, banks and schools.
The governor said that "Vermont's businesses and employers, and Vermont's places of public accommodation, know that it is unlawful to discriminate against an individual who may express his or her gender in a non-traditional manner."
He suggested the bill needs to be reworked, and pointed to the state's Human Rights Commission's vote Wednesday calling for further study of the legislation.
"It would be inappropriate and unfair to every employer, landlord, provider of public accommodation, lender and school to put a law on the books that creates new obligations and liabilities while many who would advise them are struggling with the bill's terms and scope," he said.
Kauffman said that his organization would be back in the Statehouse on June 1 — the day lawmakers return to deal with any vetoes. The bill did not receive enough votes in the House to override a veto, but Kauffman said he would try between now and then to swing the dozen or so lawmakers who were absent and didn't vote the first time around. "If not, we'll be back in January," he said.
Contact Darren Allen at darren.allen@timesargus.com.
17