OP-ED Governor Douglas' shameful legacy

Author: Kevin Moss

The governor of Vermont, a Middlebury graduate, has vowed to veto Sen. 115, the bill that extends marriage equality to same-sex couples. He says he has friends on both sides of the debate, and that beliefs are "deeply felt and passionately expressed." He also says, "For those on either side of the vote to sternly judge the other's morality and conscience is the only true intolerance in this debate."

I grew up in Louisiana in the '50s and '60s, where beliefs about race were equally deeply felt and passionately expressed. Most in my family were passionately anti-integration. They applauded another governor, George Wallace, when he stood in the schoolhouse door, courageously standing up for states' rights and for the right of the majority to decide for the minority. Many people passionately believed that the governor was protecting the God-ordained division of the races. Yet I think today few people would have any problem judging the morality and conscience of those who wanted to keep blacks in their place and out of white schools. Would we claim that "the only true intolerance would be to sternly judge" racist views, while intolerance of people because of their race must be respected? Just because a belief is deeply held does not necessarily mean it has to be respected or treated as equivalent to every other belief.

By threatening a veto of marriage equality, Douglas today is doing the equivalent of that other governor standing in the schoolhouse door. Fifty years from now his grandchildren will probably feel the same way about his legacy as I do about my grandparents' racism.

Comparing Douglas to Wallace does not, of course, mean that discrimination against gays and lesbians in 2009 is exactly the same as discrimination against African-Americans in the '60s. Yet the fact that they are different kinds of inequality should not be used to deny gay and lesbian Vermonters the right to marry, as some have attempted to do (I'm thinking of Sen. Randy Brock and a young woman who testified). Civil rights are not a zero-sum game: recognizing my rights will not deprive you of yours. Nor are civil rights only based on one kind of discrimination. They belong equally to all.

Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, recognized this when he said, "When someone asks me, 'are gay rights civil rights?' my answer is always, "Of course they are." Even more eloquent was the statement of Mildred Loving, whose interracial marriage led to the Supreme Court ruling on miscegenation in 1967:

"I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that [my husband] Richard's and my name is on a court case [Loving v. Virginia] that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Last week's special edition of The Campus meant that I couldn't get this letter in before the governor's veto. By the time this goes to press, the legislature will likely have confronted both the veto and the necessity to override. I have collected over 200 signatures from Middlebury faculty, staff, spouses and friends opposing a veto and supporting marriage equality in Vermont. Even if the veto is overridden and we can celebrate, which I hope we can, I urge the Middlebury community to remember Governor Douglas's shameful stand in the door of equality.

Editor's note: Governor Douglas' veto was overriden on Tuesday by both the Vermont State House and Senate. This Op-Ed was submitted by the author prior to this event.