|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Specifically designed to allow legal, constitutional discrimination against “white, ‘cis’ men.”
Next week, Proposition 4, a proposed amendment to our state constitution, will come before the full House of Representatives – the final hurdle in a four-year process before it goes to the voters this November in a popular referendum. What is Proposition 4? It is the so-called “Equality of Rights” amendment. Don’t be fooled. That name is as misleading as the “Affordable Heat Act.”
One might ask why we need this at all given that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already guarantees that “No State shall …. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” There you have it plain and simple. Clear, direct, and to the point. How can you improve on that?
Answer, you can’t. But the objective of Prop 4 isn’t to reaffirm equality under the law as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution; its purpose – contrary to its name — is to undermine it. In fact, Prop 4 should be really be called “The Animal Farm Amendment,” because, if it passes, Vermont will be a place where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
The text of Prop 4 reads:
That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The State shall not deny equal treatment and respect 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.
Okay. That first sentence sounds good. Why not just leave it at that? It’s a smoke screen – a head fake — so voters will let down their guard. The second sentence seems unnecessary if all people are guaranteed equal protection, but it still seems pretty benign. (Spoiler alert, it’s not.) But it’s sentence three where this legal/constitutional vehicle’s tires screech in a 180 degree u-turn as it speeds away in a cloud of dust from its supposed intent. Read it again….
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.
Translation: Woke lawmakers are free to pass laws that create special classes of people treated differently, not equally, under the law based on (back to that seemingly innocuous sentence two) “race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.” So, as Orwell eloquently described it, everyone’s equal, but these groups are more equal than others. This is ugly.
When Prop 4 was passing through the Senate, DEI activist Mark Hughes said the quiet part out loud when testifying before the Judiciary Committee. “We need to double down on everything that we can do to include protections to every vulnerable category, and Mr. Chair, respectfully, that’s everybody that’s not a white, ‘cis’ man.”
And there you have it. Prop 4 means “equal” rights for everybody who’s not a white, heterosexual male.
This is, of course, 1) racist, and 2) completely contrary to the stated purpose of the amendment. If the law provides protection for some people but not others, that is not “equality under the law.” Proponents of Prop 4 amendment are trying to trick voters into supporting this change to our state constitution – a big freaking deal – by saying it does the opposite of what it actually does, which is to codify legal discrimination against one class of people, and allow for unequal treatment under the law based on race, sexual orientation, national origin, etcetera.
So, if this disgusts you – if you’re a “white, ‘cis’ man,” the mother of one, spouse of one, sister of one, or friend of one — please contact your Representatives ASAP and tell them to vote NO on Proposition 4 when it comes up this week. And if they don’t listen to you, remember to vote against it yourself this November – along with the politicians who supported it.
You can find contact information for your Representatives HERE, or call and leave a message with the Sergeant at Arms at 802-828-2228.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 25 years of experience in Vermont politics including three years service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free market think tank.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Legislation
The danger of Prop 4 can be illustrated by reference to H.885, a bill sponsored by Rep. Jubilee McGill and other progressives. This bill adds “housing status”, ie being homeless or unsheltered as a protected class under Vermont’s anti discrimination laws and severely restricts municipalities ability to regulate or ban “life-sustaining activities” (sleeping, resting, storing belongings, etc.) on public lands – town greens for instance – unless sufficient indoor alternatives exists.
If Prop 4 is ratified by voters in November and H.885 is enacted into statute, the constitutional amendment would likely provide a stronger legal and symbolic foundation for H.885’s policies and homeless encampments might become permanent fixtures on town greens throughout the state.
Be careful what you wish for!
The constitution protects the smallest minority from tyranny of the majority, one person from the all powerful state.
This is mob rule.
This is treason of their sworn duty to uphold and defend.
Vermont BE strong
Montpelier is Marxist
Montpelier is wrong.
We need to get the lunatics out in the open, separate the American loving democrats from the Marxists.
So, if I identify as a queer, black, transwomen from Singapore, do I get more help from the state in my struggles? Just asking for a friend.
You should check out how many Republicans voted in favor of Prop 4. In the Senate, all but one voted in favor of putting Prop 4 before the voters for fear of being called racist and losing their seat.
Rob, The third sentence in effect says that THIS article can’t prevent unique measures for historically disadvantaged groups. Would a functional equivalent be (once it is passed): “the Vermont constitution cannot prevent the passage” of such laws?
The Constitution enshrines individual rights.
Communism espouses group rights. They know exactly what they’re doing.
The constitution protects the smallest minority from tyranny of the majority, except for the child inside its mother ….
Hughes also led the charge for establishment of the Burlington ‘Reparations Task Force’. Apparently he didn’t get the word that every Vermont community sent men to fight in the Civil War, and we had the second highest losses per capita. Perhaps he should try this in Georgia or Tennessee.
Thank you, Rob, for this excellent article to help inform and educate us as to the true nature of this garbage.
This is the same evil deceptive smokescreen that they pulled with Prop 5 (the “Reproductive Liberty” Amendment) to hoodwink voters from 2018 up to its egregious ratification as an amendment to the Vermont Constitution on November 8, 2022.
It’s all in the word salads which are cleverly, but diabolically crafted to mess with the average voter’s mind so he/she doesn’t have a clue what he/she is voting for. It attempts to appeal to voters by suggesting a false feel-good sense of “justice and liberty,” while inverting and perverting the true meaning and application of these virtues, which are already derived from God and provided for in our federal Constitution.
Anytime some legislator(s) tries to reinvent the wheel, it’s intended to take us down the wrong road.
Thank you for your excellent comment Martin.
I want to organize those who want to prevent Prop 4 from getting over the finish line. Are you willing to join this effort?
Yet again, trying to fix something that isn’t broken.
The purpose of a Constitution, at least from an American (USA) perspective, is (1) to define the framework of the government and (2) to elucidate the individual rights enjoyed by ALL citizens and upon which the government cannot infringe.
An American Constitution does NOT specify how rights are allocated BETWEEN individuals or groups of individuals. Such allocations are specified by laws enacted by elected legislatures.
If a state’s constitution specifies the allocation of rights, then the details about allocating rights are decided by unelected and unaccountable judges and lawyers. This is definitely NOT compatible with America’s foundational principles.
In my opinion, Constitutional Amendments such as Proposition 4 are completely incompatible with America’s founding principles.
Thank you Rob, for laying out the duplicity and the fecklessness of this unconstitutional effort and for reminding us of the lawful remedies.
As it exists our Constitution protects ALL people. It affirms that all people are equal under the law. To select individual groups of people is saying that all people are not equal under the law. That is disgraceful. It is like telling me as a man of Polish / Italian background that I somehow need special protection because….well you know Polish / Italian are not equal. I find that very disrespectful.
The British treated Polish fighter pilots of the 303 squadron as dumb and useless because they were, you know…. just Polish. The same sort of attitude and treatment was given Americans of African background here in the USA. The all black Tuskegee Airmen proved that was wrong. They flew with grate distinction. I will vote no on Prop 4 in November. Prop 4 is the same old racism we have worked to eliminate from America. The Democrats who wrote passed and enforced Jim Crow legislation, were KKK, voted against the Civil Right legislation of the 60’s have always attempted to control black people are still at it!