By Renee McGuinness, Vermont Family Alliance Policy Analyst

In the spirit of “git-r-done,” Proposition 4  “equality of rights” constitutional amendment passed out of House Judiciary on May 2, 10-0-1 after thirty-five minutes of nonsensical deliberation,  despite unknown judicial interpretation and the nearly non-existent turn-out at the public hearing the previous evening.

While the artificial intent of Proposition 4 is to provide equal rights, witness testimony, committee discussion (@19:45), and final deliberation revealed the heart of legislators, which is to provide favor for individuals and groups they deem to be marginalized, while discriminating against individuals and groups they deem to be privileged or bigoted.

The sense that people who are currently being discriminated against cannot wait another four years for the legislature reconsider the language drove the decision to pass Prop 4: the meaning and intent can be ironed out by the Supreme Court, which, according to Constitutional Law Professor Peter Teachout (@2:36:42), “makes lawyers rich.”

Eighteen minutes of deliberation was spent expressing disdain for “religion” being listed as one of the protected classes, with concern that Vermont may be compelled – if legally challenged – to provide public funding to Christian schools, and that mandating that a Muslim must be allowed to attend a Christian school would be “a battle for down the road,” according to Chair LaLonde. Just prior to the vote, two committee members supported the inclusion of “religion” for minority religious groups.

The public hearing was a farcical display in which House Judiciary Committee members outnumbered the attendees, none of which were general members of the public.

August Burns, former WHO clinical advisor and family planning, abortion, and cancer prevention provider for Planned Parenthood, claimed, “women have never been given the status of true equal citizenship.”

Sonia Skyler, member of the League of Women Voters, thinks that strong protections in state constitutions will protect individuals from a wayward SCOTUS.

Amanda Garcez from the Human Rights Commission stated including “gender identity” is “crucial” to acknowledge the inherent worth of LGBTQ individuals and prevent discrimination.

Reverend Mark Hughes, Executive Director of the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, who had testified at length earlier in the day, was afforded several public hearing protocol exemptions.

Finally, former Miss Black Vermont and future “new breed of lawyer,” Karen Sita, who struggled whether to use her “brilliant writing skills” or her “brilliant passion” to deliver her public comment,  testified that she was discriminated against, among other things, by being falsely incarcerated for being “a Black girl taking a hot girl walk.”

The only lucid public comment was provided by Gregory Baylor, Senior Counsel from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), whose concerns were the inclusion of “gender identity” and “gender expression,” which would “undermine equal opportunities” by allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports, violate privacy, and “contradict both biological reality and common sense;” jeopardize free speech if Prop 4 were used to compel pronoun use; compulsory protocols for healthcare providers in treating gender dysphoric children; and committee discussion concerning “religious individuals and organizations involving the protections of Prop 4 when facing discrimination at the hands of government.”

During deliberation, several members of the Judiciary committee expressed indignation at the threat of “weaponization” of the rule of law against their unconstitutional intent from the  “so-called lawyer,” who had stated ADF would include Prop 4 in its litigation toolkit.

ADF has already successfully challenged religious discrimination in Vermont.

In defiance of the reality that Vermont lawmakers do not have the constitutional upper hand under Prop 4, taxpayers can anticipate footing the bill for the State’s defense against anyone who dares to challenge them, if Proposition 4 is approved by voters in 2026.