On May 21, I posted a diary about Natalie Jones and her, ahem, overzealous principal and superintendent. The school officials had prevented her from presenting her independent project report on the the life of assassinated San Francisco Supervisor and gay rights activist Harvey Milk. They seemed to think that the district’s policy covering sex education and requiring written permission from her classmate’s parents for them to witness the presentation somehow applied to anything mentioning someone who was gay.

Well huzzah! The school officials have come to their senses (no doubt influenced by the intervention of the San Diego ACLU), and allowed Natalie to present her report, as reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune, “In the last few hours of the last day of school at Mount Woodson Elementary.”

The Union Tribune has furnished links to the letter the school district sent to Natalie to apologize for preventing her presentation, and to the parents of her classmates to ‘explain’ their mistaken judgment, and to Natalie’s own PowerPoint presentation.

That last one really brings home the homophobia the school’s officials operated from. Sensitivity training anyone?

Just one more bit of neanderthal bias on the part of someone who should not be running a school.

From the website for the San Diego chapter of the ACLU (emphasis added):

Wrongly citing a school policy on sex education, a California school illegally censored a sixth grader’s classroom presentation about Harvey Milk earlier this month. According to a demand letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union to the Ramona Unified School District today, the school violated Natalie Jones’s free speech rights when it refused to allow her to give the presentation in class. Instead, the school improperly required classmates to get parental permission to see the presentation during a lunch recess.

“This whole thing is unbelievable – first my daughter got called into the principal’s office as if she were in some kind of trouble, and then they treated her presentation like it was something icky,” said Bonnie Jones, mother of the Mt. Woodson Elementary School student. “Harvey Milk was an elected official in this state and an important person in history. To say my daughter’s presentation is ‘sex education’ because Harvey Milk happened to be gay is completely wrong.”

Yup. The principal decided that since San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk was gay, any presentation about him and his campaign for basic civil rights for lesbians and gay men must be about sex. Natalie’s written report scored 49 out of 50 points. The second part of the assignment was to prepare a Power Point presentation to show classmates. I guess the principal – and the superintendent – didn’t mind the written word, seen only by the teacher, but visuals about gay people? Um, must be about sex.

The superintendent told her mom that

Natalie couldn’t give her presentation because of a district board policy on “Family Life/Sex Education.” A few days later, the school sent letters to parents of students in the class, explaining that her presentation would be held during a lunch recess on May 8, and that students could only attend if they had parental permission.

Un. Frackin’. Believable.

In case anyone needs it spelled out, the ACLU has parsed it:

“Writing or talking about a gay historical figure who advocated for equal rights for LGBT Californians is in no way the same thing as talking about sex, and school officials should not pretend otherwise. … This school completely overstepped its bounds in trying to silence Natalie Jones by shunting her presentation off to a lunch recess time and misusing a school policy to justify requiring parental permission to see it.”

Gosh, ya think this is what the “Gathering Storm” zombies were talking about?

NanuqFC

Fear of corrupting the mind of the younger generation is the loftiest form of cowardice. ~ Holbrook Jackson (1874-1948)

There’s a poll on NBC’s website asking for public response to the question of whether the motto “In God We Trust” should be removed from US currency & coins. The religious right of both major parties has apparently freeped the poll, which is running at 87% No to 13% Yes.

I don’t know the motivation for the question, since I know of no move to remove the religious statement — sounds like yet another manufactured issue for the grasping-at-straws GOP hard right to stir up its hardline religious base.

Go, vote if you see fit. Let’s help balance the point of view.

Update: As of Sunday morning, the percentages are the same, with over 14 MILLION votes.

So here’s an idea that, if taken seriously and agreed to by all four announced and rumored gubernatorial candidates (and any other emerging contenders), could really be a game changer in Vermont, regardless of whether the primary date is moved:

What if all four — Susan Bartlett, Deb Markowitz, Doug Racine, and Peter Shumlin — campaigned for the entire pre-Primary period solely against Jim Douglas, and not against each other?!

That’s what needs to happen to make Jim Douglas go away.

The pluses:

1. Four (or more) cannons aimed at the major target (“eyes on the prize”).

2. Less intra-party acrimony, more party unity post-primary.

3. It would keep Douglas’s PR/campaign people busy.

4. Voters would finally understand what a mess Douglas has made of the state, given evidence from four (plus) different credible people every week of the campaign.

More below the fold …

5. It might increase primary and general election voter participation, countering voter disengagement due to internecine sniping.

6. Primary voters would get to choose which candidate had the best plan to defeat Douglas and the best vision for Vermont, instead of which candidate had the cleverest put-downs of the others or was best at beating up other Democrats.

7. The successful candidate would have plenty of ammunition to use in the final 8 weeks of the campaign.

It would be like a job interview test-task. The task is to campaign effectively against Jim Douglas and his record; the candidate who does the best job of that, gets the job of challenging the Governor with a party that is united in support of the goal: defeating Jim Douglas (and Brian Dubie, don’t forget).

Wouldn’t THAT be amazing?!

Now, just stifle your inner cynic for a few minutes and imagine what that kind of campaign would look like, and how it could transform both the Vermont Democratic Party and future campaigns.

Could we do it? Could someone with pull in the the VDP broker that deal with some teeth? (Making access to the VDP Voter File contingent on signing on is probably a ship that has sailed, but there must be something else on that order of magnitude that would provide a sweet enough carrot to encourage buy-in to the idea.)

Could party activists provide enough pressure to get all the contenders to sign on to a unified targeting agreement? Even as few as four phasers all trained on the same spot can crack an enemy’s armor (or so we learned from Kirk and crew).

C’mon, say it with me: “Imagine …” “Hope …” “I have a dream …”

The final vote was 94-52 late this afternoon as the House passed S.115. Three legislators were absent, two of them yes votes from last night: Ira Trombley of Grand isle, and Frank Geier of South Burlington. Republican Pat O’Donnell of Vernon was absent again today.

Republican Richard Westman, who was absent last night, today voted YES, bringing to six the number of Republicans who supported marriage equality.

It’s a great day for Vermont, even if we did lag behind Iowa. We’re achieving a legislative equality without a court order. The margin was huge, even though it didn’t quite reach the fail-safe two-thirds threshold.

Advocates are optimistic both that the Senate will act quickly on the slightly amended House version, and that the override vote in both chambers will be successful. Toward that end, they’re recruiting volunteers.

The vote on the third reading has just been completed.

A few of the No voters “explained” their votes with apologies to their “many” gay and lesbian “friends,” whom they might have “disappointed.” One representative went so far as to “hope” that his “gay and lesbian friends” and constituents didn’t “feel I have thrown them under the bus.”

Because there is another vote tomorrow, I’ll refrain from other comment. But for sure, Dim Jugless is gloating tonight.

I’ve been listening to the live-stream of the marriage equality debate on the House floor. Most of the Repubican antis are whining on behalf of “unheard” or possibly “unlistened-to” constituents. They were the ones pushing for the amendment to put off the bill for a “nonbinding referendum” in November. One surprise for me was Will Stevens, one of the Independents, voting for the referendum.

The referendum push is clearly a stalling tactic and a refuge for those legislators who want cover.

Bottom line is that the anti-marriage people have had all the same opportunities as the pro-marriage people to register their opinions with their representatives. Not that I think legislators are god, but here’s the analogy. People pray to their deity all the time with requests — for health, happiness, loved ones, a job, whatever. And their deity, they believe, listens to every request and answers every request. Sometimes the answer is NO.

People can send emails  and letters and make calls to their legislators on issues any time. And their concerns are listened to. There have been hearings. Gay and lesbian couples who want to marry have already served a NINE-YEAR probationary period. Enough is enough! So now, we hope, the answer to prejudice is NO!

Vermont Freedom to Marry has announced that the Marriage Equality Bill has passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 8 to 2.

The two against were Peg Flory, R-Pittsford, and Andrew Donaghy, R-Poultney.

More interesting, though, is who missed the meeting: Republican Minority Leader Patty Komline, who serves on the committee and has publicly said she would vote for the bill.

Flory, a past chair of the committee, is the ranking member. Perhaps Komline took a walk so as not to have a conflict there. Then again, who knows whether she will vote as she publicly said she would.

If you have any time to hang out at the State House, Thursday is the day to do it, and the budget bill may come up first.

Paul Millman, a self-identified new breed of entrepreneur who said he was the answer to ‘problems’ in the Vermont Democratic Party, has now withdrawn from the race.

Hello again,

Prior to the letter I sent introducing myself I spoke with a member of the state committee with whom I was already acquainted. We spoke about what was, at the time, a possible candidacy for the Chair. At the time I was unsure that it was a good idea. I began thinking seriously about this effort when the position was vacant and before Judy Bevans announced that she would seek the position. By the time I consulted with your committee colleague I was ambivalent because I spoke with Judy and knew of her plans to seek the Chair.

During our discussion he told me that while he wasn’t convinced that he should vote for me, he believed that I raised issues that needed to be addressed. It was then that I decided that the effort had legitimacy even if I didn’t win. I saw, and still see, serious issues that the state committee needs to address if it is to organize to beat Jim Douglas in 2010. I was encouraged that I could spark that discussion. I don’t think this happened. I did have great discussion with people on and off the state committee. I had less than great discussions with others.

Today I am withdrawing from consideration for the position of Chair. It’s obvious that I have no chance of winning. It also seems unlikely that the time is ripe for the discussion I seek to promote. On the other hand I still think I have something to offer and I’m egocentric enough to I think that you might find it worthwhile. While it’s true that I haven’t been intimately involved in the Party organization, my years of marketing experience and driving a successful business taught me something.

More on the flip.

Continuing Millman’s letter (with his six-point ‘prescription’ for the party omitted):

[…]

I’m going back to work. There are things at Chroma that need addressing. Windham County has three excellent representatives on the state committee. Perhaps I will consider such a position if one of them decides not to run next time. In the mean time I am happy to take on work for the state committee that fits my skills.

I wish you well ,

Paul

Paul Millman

Chroma Technology Corp.

He has apparently never attended a state committee meeting, nor has he volunteered to fundraise or to do actual campaign work in any capacity. He would have been beaten badly, likely garnering just a few votes, primarily from the labor folks (because his business is employee-owned?) who put him up to it in the first place. He could be just what is needed … if …

If he’s sincere about wanting to “help” the party and not just make it over in his own image, he’ll be at the Curtis dinner March 28, having sponsored a company table or two (for $1000 or $2000 per, plus $360 for the six dinner seats not included in the sponsorship price). Perhaps we’ll see him working the phones to raise money for a gubernatorial candidate or to help pay rent on the statewide campaign office next year, or talking to Rotary clubs and Chambers of Commerce dinners about how it’s the Democrats who are the entrepreneurs’ best friend.

A few state committee members I’ve talked to sincerely believe that will happen. If it does, good. If not (and he left himself an out in the phrase, “take on work for the state committee that fits my skills”), there’s a measure of the man and his commitment.

An excerpt from blogger Jenna Lowenstein at 365gay.com

During the debate on ENDA [the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act] last summer, Congressman Rush Holt [D-NJ] gave a floor speech in which he quoted Congressman John Lewis quoting Martin Luther King:

“Mr. Speaker, our distinguished colleague John Lewis often reminds us of the words of Dr. King, “The time is always right to do the right thing.” Dr. King warned us against the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. I am concerned that when we break apart legislation, some pieces fall on the floor to get swept into the dustbin of history or to be considered only years later. We should not do this to members of our society who need and deserve the same protections as all other Americans.”

I think Holt’s and Lewis’ and King’s point is spot on. We can compromise on taxes and on infrastructure funding and on health care costs. But we cannot — we must not — sell out the fundamental right to equality.

And if that ain’t good enough, there’s always the money angle (also reported by 365gay.com):

[A]n impact study released this week suggests there is a link between the economy and gay marriage. The study, by the Williams Institute at UCLA, found that approval of gay marriage in Vermont could generate $31 million in new spending and $3.3 million in state taxes over three years.

Meanwhile, over in Maine, a marriage equality bill had 60 legislators lined up as cosponsors, both Republicans and Democrats, some of whom might also have been considering the economy, as well as the higher calling of equality.

Last month, Maine’s tourism industry said legalizing same-sex marriage in the state could save them from disaster as the state’s economy continues to turn sour.

Do the right thing, legislators. Vote old fashioned Vermont values: Equality and fairness.