One ‘No’ vote says Vermont needs to follow the Bible

Guns in bar ban DOA in House

By Guy Page

Proposal 4, the proposed amendment to the Vermont Constitution adding new categories to Vermont’s civil rights protections including gender identity and nation of origin, passed the Vermont House yesterday, Wednesday May 13 by a role call vote of 128 yes, 14 no. and seven absent, without any pre-vote floor discussion or dissent. 

However, many lawmakers commented afterwards – and one, a ‘no’ vote, said Vermont needs to heed the words of love and peace found in the Bible. “I believe in my heart that the only words that are going to change Vermont and to change this world I believe come from the bible, and I believe that is what’s lacking in the world,” Rep. Valorie Taylor (R-Mendon) said. 

The proposal reads: “That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The State shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person’s race,ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted or applied to prevent the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination.” 

The full roll call can be seen here. The 14 legislators who voted no, all Republicans, were:

Bosch of Clarendon

Boutin of Barre City

Burditt of West Rutland

Dobrovich of Williamstown

Hango of Berkshire

Harvey of Castleton

Higley of Lowell

Howland of Rutland Town

Parsons of Newbury

Powers of Waterford

Soucy of Barre Town

Tagliavia of Corinth

Taylor of Mendon *

Winter of Ludlow

Of the 14, only Taylor offered a floor explanation:

“I have a lot of words written on this paper and I’m not going to read any of them. I believe in my heart that the only words that are going to change Vermont and to change this world I believe come from the bible, and I believe that is what’s lacking in the world. True love, peace, how I raised my girls comes from the bible. I teach them to not judge, and to love first, and to put yourself second. I believe with every ounce of my being in the bible.” 

Two Republicans voting yes said they did so in order to give Vermonters their final say on the proposed amendment on Election Day this November:

Rep. Rob North of Ferrisburgh provided the following vote explanation:

“I voted yes to ensure that my constituents get to express their vote on thisConstitutional Amendment. The purpose statement says that this amendment reasserts the principles already reflected in the Vermont Constitution, Ch. I, Art. 1 and Ch. I. Art. 7. There is no mention of making up for past deficiencies but focuses us on the present and future to ‘address existing inequalities’ (present tense) and ‘to reduce discrimination” as the bill reporter stated. This is our legislative intent.” 

Rep. Brenda Steady of Milton explained: 

“I voted yes because this vote on the floor of this body gives all Vermonters their right to decide what they want in their Vermont Constitution.” 

Guns in bars ban DOA – S.329, Sen. Phil Baruth’s bill to ban guns in bars and liquor-licensed restaurants, was DOA when it was sent over to the House, both Baruth and Judiciary Committee Chair Martin LaLonde confirmed in conversations with VDC this morning in the State House.

Senate Pro Tem Baruth (D-Chittenden) said he wanted at least one chamber to pass the bill, but said he has no expectations it will proceed in the House. Minutes later, Lalonde emphatically agreed. 

That’s not going anywhere,” Lalonde scoffed. “That’s hanging on the wall.”

However, H.606 – with its ban on ‘machine guns’ – is definitely in play. Lalonde and Senate Judiciary Chair Nader Hashim are currently in early negotiations over reconciling differences in the bill. In particular, the House version adds a ban on bump stocks and ‘machine guns’, the latter of which are defined in the bill as: “any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

Anti-ICE bills could go to court, sponsor says – Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (D-Chittenden), lead sponsor of S.208 and S.209, which prohibit officers wearing masks and making immigration-related arrests of people coming to or from places like libraries, medical facilities, or court houses, could well lead to a court challenge, told VDC this morning the bills could be subject to a court challenge.

In sum she said the bills protect Vermonters, and if the feds claim federal law and law enforcement pre-empts these state laws, that claim can be challenged in a federal court.