Site News and Information => Community alerts => Topic started by: Kate Thomas on May 21, 2006, 10:40:13 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Veto in Vermont
Post by: Kate Thomas on May 21, 2006, 10:40:13 AM
Post by: Kate Thomas on May 21, 2006, 10:40:13 AM
Burlington Free Press, VT, USA
Friday, May 19, 2006
Transgender advocates rally over governor's veto
By Lauren Ober
Free Press Staff Writer
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060519/NEWS02/605190306/1007&theme=
QuoteAt the rally, which drew about 60 people, advocates spoke about feeling disheartened by the veto. The governor's decision prompted one member of the state Human Rights Commission to resign his post. Charles Kletecka sent the governor his resignation letter Thursday in protest of the veto.
Title: Re: Veto in Vermont
Post by: amberctm on May 22, 2006, 08:25:42 PM
Post by: amberctm on May 22, 2006, 08:25:42 PM
As a Vermonter I sent an email to the governor's office in protest. I don't get why though; it passed with a good majority of the vote. Votes from both sides even. I find this really disturbing, and it upsets me immensely.
Amber
Amber
Title: Re: Veto in Vermont
Post by: Kate on May 23, 2006, 09:50:17 AM
Post by: Kate on May 23, 2006, 09:50:17 AM
Do we know what his specific problems with the wording are?
It's difficult to tell if he vetoed it for "moral" reasons (using the wording issue as an excuse), or truly is concerned that the wording is too vague and could cause problems by protecting truly inappropriate behaviours (such as wearing a dress to sneak into women's rooms for sexual gratification, etc.).
It's difficult to tell if he vetoed it for "moral" reasons (using the wording issue as an excuse), or truly is concerned that the wording is too vague and could cause problems by protecting truly inappropriate behaviours (such as wearing a dress to sneak into women's rooms for sexual gratification, etc.).
Title: Re: Veto in Vermont
Post by: Kate Thomas on May 24, 2006, 03:35:50 AM
Post by: Kate Thomas on May 24, 2006, 03:35:50 AM
An ap story
it is my current understanding that vermont passed a sexual orientation bill back in 1992 and that at that time transgender issues were dropped or excluded in the name of incremental progress. so the issues have been under scrutiny for quite some time
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/051806vttrans.htm
it is my current understanding that vermont passed a sexual orientation bill back in 1992 and that at that time transgender issues were dropped or excluded in the name of incremental progress. so the issues have been under scrutiny for quite some time
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/051806vttrans.htm
Quote"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 anti-discrimination laws," Douglas said.
Douglas said in his veto message that state law already provided such protection.
Title: Re: Veto in Vermont
Post by: jan c on May 24, 2006, 10:00:01 AM
Post by: jan c on May 24, 2006, 10:00:01 AM
Ya know I looked at this this way, just as language:
"Discrimination in Vermont is unacceptable and our state has a long, healthy and proud history of acceptance and tolerance," Douglas told the Legislature in the message accompanying his veto.
There is a jarring dissonance - see italics (mine) - between what he said (emphatically enough, right?) and what he did.
"Discrimination in Vermont is unacceptable and our state has a long, healthy and proud history of acceptance and tolerance," Douglas told the Legislature in the message accompanying his veto.
There is a jarring dissonance - see italics (mine) - between what he said (emphatically enough, right?) and what he did.