Senate to consider ‘protected’ vs. ‘equal’ rights concerns expressed at hearing
By Michael Bielawski
Lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee spent much time on Wednesday listening to professionals and the public speak about a state Constitutional amendment known as Proposition 4 or “Prop 4” asserting equal treatment for all Vermonters including historically marginalized groups. It can generally be compared to the 14 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Upset over hold-ups for Prop 4
One social leader, Executive Director of Justice for All VT Mark Hughes, was visibly frustrated that the proposition isn’t promptly being sent towards passage in its current form. Instead, lawmakers in the Senate will look at it again to ensure equal protections for all Vermonters and not just select groups, among other concerns.
Hughes was not pleased with this development. “Pass the damn Constitutional amendment and let’s get on with it,” he said at over a minute past his allotted speaking time.
Hughes complained that the committee was giving too much consideration to testimony by Peter Teachout, a professor at Vermont Law School. Teachout earlier in the day told the committee that he had some concerns regarding the “closed list” of protected groups suggesting that it essentially implies groups not on the list are not protected.
Teachout also took issue with the proposition, because it does not clarify that all Vermonters deserve protected rights. He had other concerns too.
Hughes, and the chair of the committee Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, each expressed a desire to move it along without further edits.
The bill currently insists for equal protections – on a closed list as Teachout noted – for transgender people meaning people who don’t believe there are more than two genders could be compelled by the state to adhere to that belief nonetheless. The proponents of Prop 4 alleged similar concerns regarding compelled speech after religion was added (after being taken off the list) as a protected group.
Hughes alleged that the reconsiderations over its current status amount to systematic racism.
“This is systemic racism, what we’re dealing with right here,” Hughes said. “I mean come on, we’re talking about now sending it back over to the Senate because one person who happens to be white and privileged came in and told you one thing about some civil liberties that could potentially be taken and you got a black man right here telling you about civil liberties that are currently at risk.”
Hughes could be seen walking around the House floor chamber on his cell phone during the previous testimony, the committee had to wait and then when he passed the 2-minute speaking limit by over a minute that the committee insisted would be enforced, there was no request to continue, and no opposition from committee members. He expressed frustration on numerous other matters to the committee during his testimony beginning at about 19:30 in this video.
Other testimonies
Greg Baylor of Alliance Defending Freedom also testified, he talked about women losing their rights to privacy and fair competition in sports. He said, “Laws forbidding the distinctions based on gender identity and expression have been interpreted in ways that inflict substantial harms, especially on women and girls.”
He continued to explain how having biological males in sports and private spaces for females does cause harm and it forces the acknowledgment of beliefs that not everyone agrees with.
Big Hartman, the Executive Director & General Counsel for the Vermont Human Rights Commission, also testified. She suggested Vermont’s efforts should surpass those at the federal level.
“The Federal Equal Protection Clause as it’s been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court has time and again fallen short of protecting individuals from discrimination or dismantling systemic barriers to equality,” she said.
Renee McGuinness, the Policy Analyst for the Vermont Family Alliance, shared other concerns with the committee. “We’re glad that religion was added back in so that parents can raise their children the way they want to without being you know… [persecuted].”
Another concern she shared was that extra protections for protected groups should not come at the expense of the protected rights of other groups. She said there may be some conflicts with its current language in regard to articles 1 and 7 of the Vermont Constitution.
“So the intention of equity of rights and not equality of rights violates the spirit of the law and the broad principles of personal liberty and equality under Article 1,” she said. The articles can be read here.
In all, around a dozen professional and public speakers addressed the committee throughout the day and evening. The whole public testimony can be seen here.
The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation
i am going to have the white privileges of paying twenty percent more on my property tax bills/// this makes me feel real special////
Without tax payers everything grinds to a halt.
Good for Professor Teachout. I wonder if he’s related to Zephyr Teachout, a very liberal Democrat who ran for New York governor.
Zephyr is Peter Teachout’s daughter. They are both leftists.
Too many laws leads to many more laws. How about let’s just go with equal opportunity of before and get on with it. We already agreed to that many years ago.
All these special stipulations can and will be circumvented and abused by those who can and will abuse it. That’s what NIMBY’s do b/c they always have a way. It’s just a waste of time and money, which is the ultimate purpose of politicians, meetings, and rules and regulations too numerous for even God to keep up with anymore.
Seems like the real racist in the room was the man foaming at the mouth about wanting to codify his favored protections and carveouts before anyone caught on to what he was up to. It has been exceedingly obvious that equality was never going to be enough; now it is “equity”, which is code for “extra”. All you gotta do to feed at the trough is to get yourself on the “protected class” roster.
I don’t get the whites though, offering up their own throat to be stomped on, as if they WANT to be eradicated!
“Whites” promoting their own demise…it’s like the “self-hating Jew” thing…
The House Committee on Judiciary received six public comments. Three of them were physically present and three by zoom. The House Chamber was empty. It was a poor turn-out for a hearing on a Constitutional Amendment.
A republic protects the smallest minority, the individual.
We don’t know this because we don’t know civics, they get away with lies and screwing with a perfectly workable document, because they have nefarious aims.
The do not want to protect the individual, they want to control them.
Big difference.
I always thought that our existing Constitution already promised equality and freedom for all of Vermont’s citizens. As to special groups being listed separately….no, I don’t believe that is necessary. I also don’t believe that a man is a woman or vice versa. I don’t care if the man is wearing designer women’s clothes and lipstick. What I want to know is, what makes his decision to call himself a woman more important than my decision to say “no, you are not”? You want to change the Constitution to make me HAVE to agree with him. You want to give him the right to walk around naked in women’s locker rooms even though his claim to be a woman could be total BS and what he really is is a creep looking for cheap thrills, or worse. I am offended by his (Mr. Hughes) total disregard of the safety and civil liberties of others because he feels that a man wearing badly applied makeup and a dress is much more deserving of those protections. And here is a dose of reality for you Mr. Hughes…being white does not equate to privilege. Each person, regardless of race, sits in a classroom at one time or another….what kind of student that person was and how they looked towards their future makes a big difference. Most everyone I know worked hard for what they have and it is insulting (and racist) to be accused of “white privilege” for our successes. In my humble opinion, it does you no favors to repeat such a slur to an audience you are trying to preach to about civil liberties. And justice for all Mr. Hughes?
So if I follow the logic. Why do progressives refer to Larry Elder, as the black face of white supremacy. After all he is a black man, so isn’t his perspective on civil rights legitimate?
The globalists are losing their grip and justly so! When the populace is more concerned about putting food on their table and keeping a roof over their heads, DEI is the very least concern of the majority. The grift is ending and they know it. The corporations are retreating and that means the trough of cash is as well. The more the enemy exhausts their cash cow for the conjured crisis of the day, the quicker the grifters lose their grift and the fraud is exposed. Overplayed their hand and now the real pain shifts upon them.
IMHO, anyone who identifies themself by race is a racist, be they black or white. I have to listen to that damn Vermont Public Radio continually piping a message of racism as simply OK because it’s Black Culture, or black this, or black that. If you substitute the word white for black, you will hear the same broadcast as if it were coming from a white racist. This seems obvious to me but seems to be completely ignored by the media, constantly seeking to Virtue signal. And if you claim to be color blind, you’re branded a racist by the so-called Black Culture.
Slowly but surely Jim Crow raises his ugliness – be it in the Leftist halls of Montpelier, the LGBTQ/DEI swamps of Chittenden or Windham county, as-well-as Vermont’s alien scofflaws aimlessly justifying their DC existences instead of washing feet.