![[Contents]](images/cntsicon.gif)
March 31, 1998 ---- The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal today on behalf of the US Navy, indicating it would appeal the cyber-snooping case of decorated sailor Timothy R. McVeigh, according to press sources. Advocates fear the government's move to be part of a concerted strategy to enshrine its ability to spy on American citizens using the Internet. McVeigh's plight gained international attention earlier this year after the Navy announced its intentions to discharge the 17-year veteran based on illegally-obtained evidence suggesting he might be gay. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin, a Reagan appointee, ruled against the Navy on January 29th, 1998, finding that DOD investigators violated federal wire-tap law (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or ECPA) and the President's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in seeking and obtaining Mr. McVeigh's confidential email account information from America Online by subterfuge, and without a court order. Online advocates said the Navy appeal was off-base. "The Navy got caught red-handed, and rather than make amends, continues to attack," said John Aravosis, a lawyer and online political consultant advising Senior Chief McVeigh on his case. "This guy is a decorated American sailor, and they're treating him like Saddam Hussein." Senior Chief McVeigh was the top enlisted man on the nuclear attack submarine USS Chicago, but as a result of the case has been relegated to odd-jobs such as trash disposal and librarian duties, while facing a $450 per month cut in pay. McVeigh's defenders are growing increasingly surprised by the ill-will shown by the Clinton Administration in this battle. In court last week, David Glass, the Department of Justice attorney representing the Clinton Administration, said the Navy had no intent to return the Senior Chief to his former submarine job due to concerns about "the notoriety of the case" and "the confined conditions aboard a submarine." Aravosis commented on the Navy's latest arguments concerning the notoriety of McVeigh's case. "The public was justifiably outraged that the Navy broke the law, and now the military is using that outrage as an excuse to punish McVeigh. Senior Chief McVeigh has spent his entire adult life in the Navy, and this is the thanks he gets. There is no honor in trying to gratuitously destroy the career of a decorated American." "As for the 'confined conditions on a submarine,' I would hope the Clinton Administration would think twice before making such blatantly homophobic arguments in federal court," Aravosis continued. "The simple fact is that the Navy broke the law, and Senior Chief McVeigh has been exonerated. He has served his country honorably for 17 years and deserves an apology not an appeal." Advocates also expressed concern that the Navy appeal could signal an Administration desire to preserve its options to use new technology to eavesdrop on US citizens. "The government wants to use the Internet, computers, telephones and other new technology to spy on American citizens," said Aravosis. "McVeigh's case is a threat to that effort, and the Administration is going to silence him any way they can. This case is a terrible precedent for the civil liberties of all Americans." Today's move in court could spell trouble for the Administration's credibility in the upcoming encryption battle. "The Administration can't say 'trust us, we won't use computers to spy on Americans,' and then go to court and defend such spying. That kind of hypocrisy may work in Washington, but it doesn't fly in Peoria," said Aravosis. "The simple truth is that this Administration can't be trusted with our cyber-liberties."
Abandons lesbian Latina pledge
SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, March 31, 1998 ---- Abandoning his pledge to find a lesbian Latina for the vacant seat on the Board of Supervisors, Mayor Brown Tuesday named businessman and gay activist Mark Leno to the post.
Brown has had a hard time finding a suitable candidate for the job vacated by Susan Leal in January after she was elected city treasurer. The supervisors' low pay - $24,000 a year for what is billed as a part-time job - has apparently proved a stumbling block.
Leno has close ties to Assemblywoman Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, and has been on the political and civic scenes for years. He was in the running for an earlier Brown appointment to the board, but was edged out by Leslie Katz.
Owner of Budget Signs Inc., a sign-making company that employs eight people in The City, Leno has strong ties to The City's gay and Jewish communities. He is a formidable fund-raiser for Democrats and civic and charitable causes.
Just two weeks ago, Brown said he remained committed to finding a lesbian Latina for the seat. "It's politically smart," Brown said, "with organizations like the (Harvey) Milk (Democratic) Club laying in wait for Willie Brown."
Leal, who is lesbian and Latina, was appointed to the board by former Mayor Frank Jordan before winning election on her own. Brown has said voters should have their choice reflected by those same demographics.
"I've got to stay with my politics," Brown said. "It's practical. The public never understands, but the reality politically is protect your flank. I have to massage it in such a way that I don't expose my flank, so six months down the stretch I don't get attacked."
Leno's appointment makes him the fourth male out of the five supervisors Brown has tapped since becoming mayor in January 1996 - and would upset the gender balance of the board that was chosen by voters.
Leno will have scant time to establish a record and raise money to run for the seat in November. The seats held by Supervisors Tom Ammiano, Amos Brown, Gavin Newsom and Mabel Teng are also on the ballot.
Daly City Assistant City Manager Patricia Martel, who serves on The City's Retirement Board and on the board of The City's planned new gay community center, turned down the job early this month.
Dr. Robert Gallo of the Institute of Human Virology in Baltimore, who helped discover HIV, said Monday that he and colleagues were backing away from a previous theory that it was the pregnancy hormone human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).
Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, they said that an unknown but associated chemical was responsible instead. They dubbed this mysterious element "hCG associated factor" or HAF.
Gallo first found the pregnancy effects on HIV in 1995, when he and his team accidentally left male and female lab mice in the same cages.
They found the females that became pregnant seemed to resist development of Kaposi's sarcoma, a form of cancer strongly associated with AIDS. Researchers later found the mice also resisted HIV infection.
Attention turned to hCG, which is produced in the first three months of pregnancy.
"An ironic twist to the story is that for years all of the researchers involved, including Gallo, neglected to test whether pregnant mice actually produce an equivalent of hCG," Nature Medicine said in a statement.
"Mice do not produce hCG," Gallo's team admitted in its report.
Gallo's team used a technique known as gel permeation chromatography to test hCG and ruled out the possibility that hCG was responsible for the effects.
They are now focusing on HAF.
"HAF appears to inhibit directly viral replication, at least in part, because it inhibits HIV replication in CD4 T-cells and macrophages (in a test tube)," they wrote. CD4 T-cells and macrophages are immune system cells infected by HIV.
HAF also seemed to work in monkeys infected with SIV, their version of the disease, Gallo said.
David Scadden of Harvard Medical School said further studies may come up with a treatment not only for HIV, but for many cancers.
"It would seem that motherhood has contributed yet again to the effort against cancer, maybe even superseding your mother's cancer-preventing dictum 'Eat your broccoli'," he wrote in a commentary.
But HAF would first have to be isolated and produced for tests. "The critical work is now in the final purification and chemical identification of HAF and its large-scale production," Gallo said in a statement.
"I believe this can be achieved within one or two years and can then be brought into clinical trials," he added.
"This is not without problems -- the only known source is first trimester human urine and it took 40 liters (42.4 quarts) just to get this far," Nature Medicine said in an editorial.
Staff and wire
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN, March 27, 1998 ---- An effort to get Hawaii residents this year to vote on a Constitutional Convention may be down, but not out, despite a federal appeals court ruling this morning.
"This is a state issue, not an issue of federal intervention," said state Senate Judiciary Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley (D, Kihei).
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco today refused to order a new Hawaii election to hold a state Constitutional Convention, a proposal defeated in 1996 when blank ballots were counted as "no" votes.
The court ruled that the tabulation of blank votes in a 1996 ballot question, ordered by a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that changed the state's previous practice, did not violate voters' rights.
Judge A. Wallace Tashima, in the 3-0 decision, said: "It is beyond belief to suggest that thousands of voters who left the convention question blank were secretly relying on the hope that their votes would not be counted, and that they would have voted 'yes' had they foreseen the (Hawaii Supreme Court) ruling."
Chumbley today said he would meet with fellow Judiciary Committee members to decide whether to hold a hearing on a House bill still alive that would put the Con Con on the November ballot.
The committee, he said, could amend the wording of the question or decide not to change the bill, and send it to the full Senate where it could be passed and sent to the governor.
Propoents of the convention may also seek a higher appeal. Attorney Frederick Rohlfing III, a spokesman for Citizens for a Constitutional Convention, said his group was disappointed by the appeals court's ruling and will consider whether to make a request to the U.S. Supreme Court to review today's decision.
But, Rohlfing added, "It appears that the best chance we have of achieving a state Constitutional Convention is for the state Senate to pass House Bill 3130, House Draft 1, that would put the question on the ballot.
"Voters ought to be given another opportunity to say whether they want to have a Constitutional Convention."
Rohlfing said putting it to voters on the November ballot would save the state the cost of having a special election as was required by U.S. District Judge David Ezra's ruling, which the appeals court rejected.
"It is only fair that the question be put to the voters one more time with all the cards on the table, so to speak. Voters will now know that if they leave their ballots blank it will be counted with the no ballots. If there are more blank, spoiled and no ballots then the question is defeated," Rohlfing said.
If voters approve of having a Constiutitonal Convention, then the Legislature must schedule an election for convention delegates and likely have the convention by the year 2000, he said.
Meanwhile, opponents of a Con Con say they will lobby against the bill in the Legislature.
"It's just a wait-and-see position until the bill traveling through the Legislature reaches its final destination," said Ryan Mielke, public information officer for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
OHA said it will urge Hawaiians to vote no on a Con Con if the bill succeeds and the question is put on the November ballot.
Civil rights attorney Dan Foley said: "I think this is the ruling that people expected. Obviously, it shows that (U.S. district Judge David) Ezra was wrong as were others who criticized the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling. "It is a vindication of the Hawaii Supreme Court. No one's rights was violated process in the process."
Foley represents three same-sex couples who want the legal right to marry. Same-sex marriage advocates fear that a constitutional convention will be used by opponents to bar homosexual marriages.
Hawaii's Constitution requires the Legislature to consider a vote on a constitutional convention at least once every decade. The last convention was in 1978.
The 1996 vote was 163,869 in favor, 160,153 against, and 45,245 blank ballots. Before the election, the state Office of Elections had stated in writing that blank balots would be disregarded.
Tashima, joined by Judges Charles Wiggins and John Noonan, noted that states have considerable freedom to design their election laws. He said the state court ruling was a mere "clarification" of the law and did not discount anyone's vote.
Lowell Finley, a lawyer for the state AFL-CIO, said the ruling "reinstates the proper balance of powers between the state and federal court systems." He said the labor organization "did not want to see a Pandora's box opened through the convening of a state constitutional convention."
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) Friday March 27 ---- "Titanic" star Leonardo DiCaprio sued Playgirl magazine Thursday over unauthorized nude photographs it plans to publish of the actor.
The boyish-looking star, a heartthrob for young girls, filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking unspecified damages from the magazine and an injunction to prevent publication of the pictures.
In the suit, DiCaprio, 23, said he suffered "shame, mortification, hurt feelings, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and injury to his privacy and peace of mind."
It said publication of the pictures would be offensive and objectionable and that a "reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would not want to disclose in a nationally published magazine ... his completely naked body, including full frontal nudity."
It said Playgirl had ignored repeated requests to reveal the source of the photos and show them to the actor, who is also currently starring in "The Man in the Iron Mask."
Ironically, DiCaprio's character in the Oscar-winning movie "Titanic" is an artist who sketches co-star Kate Winslett in the nude.
There was no immediate comment about the suit from the New York-based magazine, which routinely publishes authorized photographs of naked men.
DiCaprio's suit comes just days after the editor-in-chief of Playgirl was quoted as saying she had quit in protest at plans by the magazine's owners to print the nude pictures of the "Titanic" star.
"It goes against my ethics," Ceslie Armstrong told the New York Post. "It's an invasion of privacy. I can't be associated with it."
Last year, another movie star, Brad Pitt, sued Playgirl for publishing nude pictures of the actor and his then-girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow.
A judge ordered the magazine not to publish any more copies of its August issue with the Pitt photos, but did not order a recall of issues already distributed as Pitt had requested. Armstrong took over the magazine in July after the Pitt controversy.
Playgirl used photographs taken in 1995 by a photographer who trespassed on the grounds of a hotel in the West Indies to shoot in a bungalow where Pitt was staying with Paltrow.
March 26, 1998 Service Members Defense --- The Navy and Department Of Justice have until Monday, March 30 to appeal the decision in McVeigh v. Cohen. They should not. And you should let members of the Administration and Department of Defense know that you are watching this case carefully and urge them to not appeal the decision.
Senior Chief Petty Officer Timothy McVeigh is the senior enlisted nuclear submariner whom the Navy attempted to discharge for allegedly using the word "gay" in an anonymous America Online user profile. The Navy attempted to verify McVeigh's identity by surreptitiously and illegally obtaining subscriber information from America Online. On January 26, 1998, Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled that the Navy "violated the very essence of 'Don't Ask' and 'Don't Pururse' by launching a search and destroy mission."
The Navy has taken a hard line since Sporkin's ruling, refusing to reinstate McVeigh to the position of Chief of Boat he held prior to the Navy's "search and destroy mission." The Navy's intransigence reached a new extreme today.
David Glass of the Department of Justice reportedly told Federal District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin that the Navy will not reinstate McVeigh as Chief of Boat because of the "confined conditions aboard the nuclear submarine." The DOJ statements are extreme and out of step with Adminstration policy. The position also defies a federal court order that the Navy restore McVeigh to the position he held before the Navy's illegality.
The Administration has the opportunity to right this ship. Please weigh in.
President William J. Clinton, email: president@whitehouse.gov; voice: (202) 456-1111; snail: White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20500
Vice-President Albert Gore, vicepresident@whitehouse.gov, White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20500
Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, whitehouse@federal.gov, White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20500; (202) 456-1414
Secretary of Defense William Cohen, comment via DoD web page: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html; voice: (703) 695-5261; fax: (703) 695-1219; snail: 1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301-1000
NEW YORK, MARCH 26, 1998 ---The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is calling a speech delivered by Green Bay Packers player Reggie White "shocking and appalling." White spoke before the Wisconsin State Legislature yesterday, where he accused the United States of "going away from God" by "allowing homosexuality to run rampant," called homosexuality "a decision," and applauded various races for their "gifts" based upon stereotypical traits. To an audience of political leaders stunned into silence by the hour-long diatribe, White made comments about gays, African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, and others.
"I'm absolutely appalled that someone of White's stature would be so insensitive to a group that has faced so much discrimination and bigotry," said openly gay ex-Green Bay Packer Dave Kopay.
GLAAD Executive Director Joan M. Garry said, "White's stardom gives him influence over millions of youth and adult fans. I am shocked that he would irresponsibly use his voice in such a damaging manner. White's assertion that being lesbian or gay is a malicious 'lifestyle' akin to dishonesty and cruelty is bizarre, wrong-headed and factually inaccurate. GLAAD calls upon him to apologize for his divisive and hurtful comments and asks the National Football League and the Green Bay Packers to separate themselves from White's prejudicial views."
In addition to demanding an apology, GLAAD will urge all of its GLAADAlert subscribers to contact the Green Bay Packers and the NFL to voice their concern. More than 70,000 people receive the weekly online publication, which is available at http://www.glaad.org.
GLAAD is a national organization dedicated to promoting fair, accurate and inclusive representations of individuals and events in the media as a means of challenging discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity.
Milwaukee Journal, March 26, 1998 ---- State lawmakers were stunned Wed. by comments made by Green Bay Packers star Reggie White in a rambling, hourlong speech on the floor of the Assembly in which he denounced homosexuality and made what some considered offensive remarks about racial differences.
In his speech, White said blacks like to dance, Asians could "turn a television into a watch," Hispanics knew how to put 20 or 30 people under the same roof, and whites were good at making money.
His comments were met with silence by shocked lawmakers, who minutes earlier had welcomed the ordained minister and defensive end with a standing ovation.
In another part of his address, while talking about sin, White said "one of the biggest ones" is homosexuality.
He added he was offended that homosexuals "compare their plight with the plight of black people" and say that they have been persecuted and discriminated against. "Homosexuality is a decision; it's not a race," White said.
White, speaking without notes, delivered an address that resembled a lengthy sermon with numerous references to the Bible and pronouncements about sin and morality.
Rep. Rosemary Potter (D-Milwaukee) said, "It's very inappropriate that he used this platform as a hero to make inappropriate, inaccurate and offensive statements that hurt people."
Talking to reporters after his speech, White was unapologetic about his remarks, saying if people found them offensive, "that was their problem."
(White seems to be preaching a religion based on hate and bigotry, rather than on love and tolerance. He is fanning the flames that can cause more hate crimes in Wisconsin and elsewhere.)
NEWSWEEK, March 30, 1998 issue --- A proposal to federally fund needle-exchange programs has angry senior health officials ready to draw blood. White House AIDS policy director Sandra Thurman is siding with the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, which wants to give drug addicts free and clean needles. They argue that their plan might curb HIV transmission. But drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey isn't convinced. In a strong letter to Thurman last week--copied to key Hill legislators--McCaffrey said the plan misses the point. "We must offer them a way out not a means to continue addictive behavior," he said. The council disagrees, and the president has yet to choose sides. If the administration doesn't act within the next month, the AIDS Council's 31 volunteer members are threatening to quit or call for Health Secretary Donna Shalala's resignation.
WASHINGTON - BOSTON GLOBE, March 21, 1998, WASHINGTON NOTEBOOK ---- Senator John F. Kerry ambushed Republicans on the Senate Small Business Committee this week to try to force action on the stalled nomination of Fred Hochberg, a New York businessman and son of catalog legend Lillian Vernon, for the No. 2 job at the Small Business Administration.
Kerry rallied other Democrats on the panel to show support for Hochberg and transformed what was to be a routine hearing on the SBA budget into a contentious wrangle.
Republicans have refused to schedule a hearing on Hochberg's nomination and accused him of violating campaign-finance laws because a $15,000 ''soft money'' donation he made to the Democratic National Committee ended up in a ''hard money'' account, bringing Hochberg's annual contributions over the legal limits.
Hochberg, an MBA as well as a graduate of Harvard's Kennedy School, is the CEO and president of the Lillian Vernon Co. He and his mother, generous Democratic donors, have been overnight guests at the White House.
Senator Christopher ''Kit'' Bond of Missouri, who is chairman of the committee, said the objection to Hochberg centers on the contribution issue. However, Democrats on the panel and White House aides say the holdup may be because Hochberg is gay and had been co-chairman of the Human Rights Campaign. Another Clinton nominee who is gay, James Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist and heir to the Hormel meat fortune, has been blocked by three Republican senators from becoming ambassador to Luxembourg.
Kerry's committee ambush failed to break the stalemate, but he thinks Hochberg will get a hearing.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) March 23, 1998 --- The Boy Scouts are not covered by California civil rights laws and can exclude gays, agnostics and atheists, the state Supreme Court ruled today.
In a pair of unanimous decisions, the court said the Scouts are not a business and therefore are free, like any private club, to set their own membership policies.
One ruling upheld a decision by a Contra Costa County Scout organization in 1981 to reject an 18-year-old former Eagle Scout as an assistant scoutmaster after learning he was homosexual.
The other ruling involved 9-year-old twin brothers who were barred by an Orange County Cub Scout den in 1990 after they refused to declare a belief in God.
The twins, Michael and William Randall, were allowed into the Scouts by lower-court rulings and recently qualified to become Eagle Scouts, Scouting's highest honor, subject to approval by the national organization. They and their father, James G. Randall, who is also their lawyer, say the boys are agnostics who haven't yet worked out their religious beliefs.
Both Randall and lawyers for Timothy Curran, whose application to be an adult leader in the Mount Diablo Council was rejected when he disclosed his homosexuality in a newspaper interview, sued under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. That law forbids discrimination by business establishments on various grounds, including sexual orientation and religion.
But the justices said today that the Boy Scouts are a private, selective organization, not a business.
``Scouts meet regularly in small groups (often in private homes) that are intended to foster close friendship, trust and loyalty,'' said the lead opinion by Chief Justice Ronald George.
``The Boy Scouts is an expressive social organization whose primary function is the inculcation of values in its youth members.''
Although the Scouts sell goods to members of the public, George said, ``nonmembers cannot purchase entry to pack or troop meetings, overnight hikes, the national jamboree or any portion of the Boy Scouts' extended training and educational process.''
The ruling contrasts with a decision March 2 by an appellate court in New Jersey that said the Boy Scouts and their local councils were ``places of accommodation'' with open membership and were covered by the state's civil rights law. That ruling, in favor of a gay scoutmaster, was the first by any appellate court in the nation against the Scouts' anti-gay policy.
The Boy Scouts say homosexuality violates their concept of traditional moral values, embodied in a provision of the Scout oath in which members pledge to be ``morally straight.''
London, England March 21, 1998 --- Islamic fundamentalists tried to beat up a gay man and threatened to kill him at a London conference on "Islamophobia", designed to promote understanding and tolerance of Muslim values, and attended by Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders.
The conference declaration claimed that "Islam is wrongly and unjustly portrayed as barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist, violent and aggressive".
During the question and answer session, OutRage! activist and former Muslim of Pakistani descent, Muhammad Khan(*), asked the panel of speakers how negative attitudes towards Muslims among gay people could be overcome, given that Islam advocates the burning alive of homosexuals.
Most of the conference turned on Muhammad. He was surrounded by over a hundred Muslims who screamed abuse and threatened to kill him. "I thought I was going to be lynched", he said. "Some were trying to hit me. It was only the intervention of the stewards that stopped them."
None of the Muslim, Christian or Jewish leaders on the platform intervened to calm the situation or condemn the violence. One, Imam Abdul Jalil Sajid, a Muslim cleric and member of the Runnymede Trust, shouted that Muhammad had no need to ask what Muslims thought of homosexuals: all he had to do was look at the audience's reaction. The violent scenes led to the abandonment of the conference.
Held at King's College, London, on Wednesday, 18th March, the conference on "Islamophobia -- The Xenophobia of our Times" was sponsored by the Islamic Foundation. It was organised by the Federation of Students' Islamic Societies (FOSIS) and the University of London Union. -- ULU has an anti-homophobia policy that was clearly violated.
As well as Imam Sajid, the speakers included:
-- Siva Ganeshanadanan, President of ULU;
-- Dr. Richard Stone, Chair of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality and
spokesman for the Runnymede Trust;
-- Muhammad Risaluddin, leader of the inter-faith Calamus Foundation;
-- and Rev. John Webber, advisor to the Bishop of Stepney.
None of the speakers defended Muhammad's right to ask a question or spoke out against the homophobic insults.
"Muslims want tolerance for themselves but not for lesbians and gays", said Muhammad Khan. "They condemn Islamophobia, while zealously promoting hatred and violence against homosexuals."
(*) Name changed, given the violence which exists amongst the fundamentalist community.
By JULIE MASON
HOUSTON CHRONICLE, March 21, 1998 --- A judge Friday temporarily blocked the city from enforcing Mayor Lee Brown's executive order banning discrimination against lesbians and gays in city government.
State District Judge Patrick W. Mizell agreed with Councilman Rob Todd and conservative businessman Richard Hotze that Brown lacks city charter authority to impose such an order.
However, Mizell also found that Hotze lacks standing to pursue the case, leaving Todd as the lone plaintiff.
"I would not have filed the suit if I hadn't been utterly convinced I was right and that it involved a substantial policy interest," Todd said. "I think it's fair for me to call on the mayor to do the right thing, and if he wished to proceed, to put it back to the voters."
After a briefing by city attorneys, Brown said he is considering an appeal. "We are disappointed with Judge Mizell's ruling," Brown said. "We continue to believe that our interpretation is correct, that the mayor has the power to issue executive orders."
Brown in January fulfilled a mayoral campaign pledge by signing an executive order barring discrimination in city government on the basis of sexual orientation.
Although criticized by some conservatives on City Council, Brown's order had the support of more than enough members if he wanted to achieve passage through ordinance.
Instead, Brown used his executive order authority to sign the measure into policy.
Mizell said the city charter authorizes only council and the Civil Service Commission to make rules regarding discrimination -- not the mayor.
City attorneys had argued that, historically, the commission hears grievances and protects the rights of employees -- without functioning as a rule-making body.
Mizell's order rejected such claims, and noted "the historical practice of the city does not alter the plain language of the charter."
And every anti-discrimination measure offered for consideration in the court record was at one time voted on by council, according to Mizell.
Hotze, who plans to appeal Mizell's ruling he lacks standing to pursue his claim, said he also has "mixed feelings" about winning an order against the city.
"I feel sorry for the mayor because he was advised poorly. What he did was illegal, and nobody at City Hall would tell him so," Hotze said. "But at the same time, I am elated we have struck a blow for what was right."
Untouched in the judge's order was an argument by city attorneys that the impetus for the lawsuit was political opposition by conservatives to Brown and his order protecting gays.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Bertrand Pourteau argued before Mizell that mayors have been issuing executive orders on employment issues for decades -- and that Hotze and Todd fought back only when the issue involved discrimination and homosexuality.
Although Todd has stated repeatedly he opposes the substance of Brown's executive order, he and Hotze have said their suit is aimed at procedural concerns alone.
That is a claim widely scoffed at by some in the gay community -- including some gay conservatives, who said eradicating discrimination is a goal all conservatives should share.
"It's certainly ironic that Mr. Hotze wants to perpetuate discrimination, and that in all the years he has been involved in politics in Houston, he has never questioned the mayor's right to issue executive orders until it comes down to employment equality for gay city employees," said Clarence Bagby, president of the Houston Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.
Still, voters in 1985 overwhelmingly repealed a measure approved by council a year earlier to protect lesbians and gays from discrimination in city government.
Hotze, who was active in the campaign that defeated that measure, sued Brown and the city soon after the January executive order was signed into policy.
Hotze claimed the charter precludes the mayor from issuing an executive order effectively reversing an issue the voters have already decided.
But a careful reading of the provision in question shows the mayor cannot act on any resolution "adopted" by voter referendum.
Mizell ruled that since the 1985 referendum repealed -- rather than "adopted" -- the anti-discrimination measure, the charter provision prohibiting the mayor from tinkering with it does not apply.
So, since the charter would have authorized Todd to vote on the matter but does not cover Hotze's claim he was robbed of his vote, Mizell found Hotze has no standing to pursue the case.
"The judge read the charter, and the charter states the mayor cannot unilaterally make law -- and he was wrong to have done so," Hotze said. Several groups representing gay interests have been monitoring the case, and some, including the local political caucus, are considering legal intervention.
"Mr. Hotze is a self-proclaimed religious zealot, and it's ironic that a person of faith would be so adamant in his desire to discriminate against any group," Bagby said.
Todd, who joined the lawsuit at Hotze's request and is now the only council member involved in litigation against the mayor, scoffed at suggestions his position is "awkward."
"The whole point of the lawsuit in the first place was to make certain the mayor followed proper procedures and to make certain all of the checks and balances inherent in city government are observed," Todd said.
He also dismissed claims his suit is based in homophobia, or that by suing the city he is contradicting any principles of fiscal conservatism.
"Sexual orientation is so vague as to encompass a plethora of sexual behavior, and there are some behaviors you don't want a Parks Department soccer coach engaging in," Todd said.
And, he added: "Wherever the battle for democracy needs to be waged, I will be there. Liberty never comes cheap."
(NEW YORK, Tuesday, March 17, 1998) ----- Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, on behalf of a host of major medical and public health associations, urges the United States Supreme Court to rule that the Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with HIV.
The Supreme Court will hear argument about its first AIDS-related discrimination case, Randon Bragdon, DMD v. Sidney Abbott, et al, on Monday, March 30. Lambda attorneys, Catherine Hanssens and Heather Sawyer, will be available for questions after the hearing.
"The Court must understand that the AIDS crisis has released an epidemic of discrimination," said Hanssens, Lambda AIDS Project director and co-author of a friend-of-the-court brief in the case about whether a Maine dentist violated the ADA when he refused to provide routine dental treatment in his office to a woman with HIV.
"The ADA is the best hope for legal protection for people with HIV. That law must not be distorted to cut out hundreds of thousands of people who are HIV positive," she said.
Lambda and co-authors from Whitman-Walker Clinic Legal Services Department filed the legal brief on behalf of more than a dozen of the country's leading medical and public health associations and individual experts.
At issue is whether people who have HIV but currently appear asymptomatic are covered by the ADA. The term "asymptomatic" has come to describe early stages of infection when, despite the constant viral attack occurring in the immune system, an infected individual may seem symptom free. The ADA was enacted in 1990 to protect people with disabilities from discrimination by employers, insurers, and service providers.
Sawyer, referring to arguments Lambda made on behalf of 10 national health groups and six individual public health and medical experts, said, "Health care providers like dentists cannot exempt themselves from findings of medical science and federal law. They should not be free to make arbitrary and discriminatory decisions that have no basis in science and harm the public." A staff attorney in Lambda's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago, Sawyer assisted in writing the brief.
She said, "From the start, HIV infection is a serious impairment, even when it does not cause clinical symptoms. Among other things, it limits human intimacy, sexual activity, diet, procreation, and parenting. Furthermore, people with HIV often suffer discrimination on the basis of their disability."
Lambda Legal Defense Executive Director Kevin Cathcart said, "Denying ADA protection to people because their HIV infection is not obvious would undermine public health goals -- it would discourage testing and treatment and encourage people to hide their HIV status." He asked, "Why reveal, or even learn your status if that information means you can be denied treatment or fired from your job?"
As for the Bangor, Maine, dentist's fears about filling a cavity for someone with HIV, Sawyer noted, "The risks of a dental worker acquiring HIV on the job are virtually nil."
Lambda's brief notes: "Despite the millions of dental procedures that have been performed since the first reported case of AIDS in 1981, there has been no documented case of occupational transmission of HIV to a dental worker."
Said Jon Davidson, supervising attorney for Lambda's Western Regional Office in Los Angeles, "A health care provider's personal, unsubstantiated opinion cannot be allowed to undermine findings of medical science and federal law."
Abbott, whose claim against the dentist was upheld at both the trial and appeals court level, is represented by Bennett Klein of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.
Noting conflicting ADA rulings from courts around the country, Davidson said, "Federal courts have been confused about how to apply the ADA to people whose disabilities do not have apparent symptoms. We hope the Supreme Court will stop the erosion of this critical anti-discrimination law."
He added, "The Supreme Court's decision about the scope of protections provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act will profoundly affect the entire country from public health efforts to combat this epidemic, to individuals with HIV and many others in the community with disabilities that don't 'measure up' to unfair and ignorant standards for what constitutes a disability."
Lambda and Whitman-Walker filed the amicus brief on behalf of groups and individuals such as the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, John G. Bartlett, M.D., June E. Osborn, M.D. (Former chair of the Congressional National Commission on AIDS), and Merle A. Sande, M.D.
WHO: Lambda AIDS Project Director Catherine Hanssens and
Staff Attorney Heather Sawyer of Lambda's Midwest Regional Office
WHAT: Respond to questions regarding Bragdon v. Abbott, first case
concerning HIV discrimination and the ADA argued to the U.S. Supreme Court
WHEN: Monday, March 30, immediately after 10 a.m. hearing
WHERE: Plaza outside U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C.
Contact: Kathy Strieder or Peg Byron, 212-809-8585, 888-987-1984 (pager)
(Bragdon v. Abbott, No. 97-156)
HOLLYWOOD VARIETY, March 9, 1998- It's one thing for the critical establishment to carp about ``Ellen's'' rigid gay-ness, but when a well-known lesbian activist does it -- well, that's news.
Chastity Bono, the high-profile entertainment media director of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and last season a bit player on ``Ellen,'' is soliciting support for her favorite sitcom in a novel way: by calling the show ``too gay-specific.''
If the struggling show is going to be picked up for a sixth season by ABC, the creators need to slow down -- ``take smaller steps'' and chart a more moderate path, advises the 29-year-old daughter of Sonny Bono and Cher.
``('Ellen') is so gay it's excluding a large part of our society,'' Bono tells Variety. ``A lot of the stuff on it is somewhat of an inside joke. It's one thing to have a gay lead character, but it's another when every episode deals with pretty specific gay issues.''
ABC sees ``Ellen'' as a betrayal, according to Bono, who visits the set regularly. ``Ellen (DeGeneres) has gone in a totally different direction than she said she would. Originally, she said this wasn't going to be the 'Gay Ellen Show,' that every episode wasn't going to deal with gay issues. But it pretty much has. And this is something ABC hasn't been happy about.''
Lest anyone tag her a turncoat, Bono is quick to point out she remains a big fan of ``Ellen.''
``The show is not too gay for me,'' she clarifies. ``But we have to be realistic. This is network primetime. When a show treats gay issues over and over again, it becomes 'a gay show,' and the average viewer says, 'Hey, I'm not gay -- I'm not going to watch it.'''
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - The Boy Scouts of America's ban on admitting gays violates New Jersey's laws against discrimination, a state appeals court ruled today.The court said the Scouts' decision to kick James Dale out of the Boy Scouts because he is gay should be overturned. An attorney for Dale said this is the first time any appeals court has ruled against the Boy Scouts in challenges to their exclusion of homosexuals.
Dale earned 30 merit badges, seven achievement honors and other awards, and was an Eagle Scout during his 12 years in the organization. He last served as an assistant scoutmaster.He was expelled by the Monmouth Council of the Boy Scouts in 1990 after the group learned from a newspaper article that he was gay. He sued and a lower court judge ruled in the Scouts' favor in 1995, calling homosexuality ``a serious moral wrong'' and agreeing with the Boy Scouts of America that the group is a private organization and has a constitutional right to decide who can belong.
The Appellate Division of State Superior Court overruled that decision today, saying the Boy Scouts of America and its local councils are ``places of accommodation'' that ``emphasize open membership'' and therefore must adhere to New Jersey's anti-discrimination law.
New Jersey's anti-discrimination law was expanded in 1992 to prohibit most organizations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
``There is absolutely no evidence before us, empirical or otherwise, supporting a conclusion that a gay scoutmaster, solely because he is a homosexual, does not possess the strength of character necessary to properly care for, or to impart BSA humanitarian ideals to the young boys in his charge,'' the decision read.
All three members of the appellate panel agreed that Dale should be restored as a member of the Boy Scouts. One judge, however, disagreed that the Boy Scouts should be forced to reinstate Dale to a leadership position. The dissent means the decision can be automatically appealed for a hearing before the state Supreme Court. Dale, now 27 and working in New York for a publishing company, said he was elated by the decision.
``This is everything that I was taught in the Boy Scouts, that justice will prevail,'' Dale said. ``It's a wonderful victory for scouting. I was taught in Boy Scouts that you stand up for your rights, that when you know something was right, deep down, you go for it.''
In a related decision, the national executive board of the Boy Scouts has voted to create a new division of Explorer scouting that will allow posts to choose their religious standards, spokesman Gregg Shields said today.
The Explorer program - which involves scouts from the ages of 14 to 20 - will be split into a newly created Venturing division as well as Career Exploring, Shields said from Scout headquarters in Irving, Texas.
Venturing programs will retain ``traditional standards for duty to God,'' Shields said, while Career Exploring posts will be allowed an option. ``The change removes the (religion-related) conflict for some of the organizations currently offering Exploring programs, but it allows us to continue reaching youths with our character-building programs,'' he said.
The change could avert some court challenges to the scouts' requirement of a belief in God and also its ban on gay youths and gay adult leaders, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said today in a report on the board's vote. Two such discrimination suits now before the California Supreme Court were filed by a man who was expelled because he is gay and twin boys who were thrown out because they do not believe in God.
Scout lawyer George Davidson argued before the court in January that homosexuals and atheists do not belong in an organization that teaches conservative sexual morality and promotes a duty to God. The court's decision was expected this month.
Last May, a federal court in San Diego ruled the Scouts is not a business and does not have to give a leadership post back to a gay police officer who was forced out after he disclosed his sexuality. And last month, Chicago settled a lawsuit by agreeing to sever its ties to scouting programs until the group accepts gays and stops requiring a religious oath.
The American Civil Liberties Union had sued alleging the city's involvement violated the separation of church and state and that the Scouts' ban on admitting gays is discriminatory.
In New Jersey and Alaska, judges have rejected long-standing discriminatory policies to advance the cause of equal rights for gays and lesbians..
On March 2, the Appellate Division of New Jersey's State Superior Court ruled that the Boy Scouts' policy of excluding avowed homosexuals violates that state's non-discrimination law, which specifically includes "sexual orientation" language. The case began in 1990 when the Scouts dismissed James Dale, now 27, as assistant scoutmaster after discovering his homosexuality. A lower court judge ruled in favor of the Scouts in 1995. The appellate court decision overturned the lower court ruling, which had agreed with the Scouts that homosexuality is "a serious moral wrong," and that as a private organization the Scouts reserved the right to decide its own membership requirements. According to the three-judge appellate court, in New Jersey judges will decide who belongs to the Boy Scouts.
However, because one judge did not agree with the others that the Scouts should be forced to reinstate Dale, the decision will be appealed automatically to the State Supreme Court.
Just two days earlier, Anchorage, Alaska, Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski ruled against the state's ban on same-sex "marriages." The state has never recognized same-sex relationships as "marriage," and the Alaska legislature passed a specific ban against doing so in 1996 - the federal Defense of Marriage Act grants power to the states to recognize "gay marriages."
Arguing that choosing a "partner" is a fundamental right, Michalski ruled that the state must prove a "compelling governmental interest" for not recognizing homosexual "marriages." "It is the decision itself that is fundamental, whether the decision results in a traditional choice or the non-traditional choice," he wrote.
John Gaguine, the assistant attorney general who argued the case for the state, said the state would likely ask its supreme court to review the ruling. If the ruling stands, it would be virtually impossible for the state to prove a "compelling interest," and Alaska could face an override of both a bill passed by majority in the Alaska legislature and the state's longstanding social traditions regarding marriage - by a single judge.
FORT COLLINS The Denver Post, March 4, 1998 ---- In the face of a divided community, city leaders Tuesday night unanimously adopted a local law that protects gays and lesbians from discrimination.
The Fort Collins City Council approved an ordinance that makes sexual orientation a prohibited basis for discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations. The measure is scheduled to take effect March 13. Fort Collins joins Denver, Boulder, Aspen, Telluride and Crested Butte as Colorado municipalities with gay-rights ordinances on the books.
The action came after about two years of study and months of bitter debate. Dozens of supporters and opponents, in roughly equal numbers, voiced their opinions in fiery and nervous tones, with ordinance foes vowing to overturn the measure through a referendum.
Members of local churches said they may start a petition drive today to bring the issue before voters during a general election. A decade ago, voters in this northern Colorado city rejected a measure that would have extended legal protections to gays and lesbians.
Opponents, including teens from a local Baptist school, argued that the ordinance gives homosexuals special rights by publicly condoning their "immoral'' lifestyle and forcing it on others.
Some lambasted the council for not representing the views of opponents. Gay activists, meanwhile, said the ordinance simply ensures equal protection from discrimination.
"This is not about special rights. It's about human rights for all people,'' said Terry Summers, executive director of the Lambda Community Center, a gay-advocacy organization.
Before the vote, lesbian parents with their children in tow, gay teens, transsexuals and others implored the city council to take the "courageous'' step of protecting their civil rights.
Steve Roy, city attorney, said the ordinance was crafted to strike a balance between the First Amendment rights of all people to freedom of speech and religion, and the civil rights of those who are discriminated against.
In approving the measure, council members said they want to promote respect and justice in their community.
"Alternately, we've been called courageous and inept. I would argue that we've been neither. We've tried to do our jobs conscientiously,'' said Councilman Mike Byrne. "Big picture, the ordinance is intended to be a mild redress to a situation that does exist.''
Another ordinance approved Tuesday night clarifies language in the Human Rights Code, emphasizes conciliation in handling discrimination claims, and makes the code more consistent with state and federal laws. This measure drew very little comment.
But nearly 150 local residents attended the meeting to take a stand on the gayrights ordinance of the Human Rights Code.
Supporters held a candlelight vigil before the council convened, and members of the Rainbow Chorus, a gay and lesbian choir, sang "Freedom is Coming'' among other songs.
Meantime, foes donned stickers simply stating, "No.''
WASHINGTON (AP) March 4, 1998 --- On-the-job torment can be illegal sexual harassment even when the offender and victim are the same sex, the Supreme Court said Wednesday in a decision that could touch virtually every American workplace.
The court said same-sex harassment can violate a federal anti-discrimination law as it voted unanimously to revive a Louisiana lawsuit closely watched by the nation's employers and gay-rights groups.
In that lawsuit, a man alleged he was sexually harassed by three other men while working on a Gulf of Mexico oil rig.
Wednesday's decision provided important new guidelines for resolving sex-harassment claims, but plenty of questions remain about the legality of certain conduct in specific employment settings.
``Common sense and an appropriate sensitivity to social context will enable courts and juries to distinguish'' between what is legal and illegal, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court.
``We're very pleased with the commonsense standard the court adopted,'' said Ann Reesman, a lawyer for the Equal Employment Advisory Council, an employers' group. ``This adds some clarity.''
Gay-rights advocates also praised the ruling. ``Civil rights law will no longer unfairly exclude same-sex sexual harassment, and this fact will benefit all American workers,'' said Elizabeth Birch of the Human Rights Campaign.
The ruling allows victims of homosexual harassment to get into federal court even though Congress never has said bias based on sexual orientation is illegal.
Kathy Rodgers of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund said the ruling ``once and for all places sexual harassment law squarely in the mainstream of anti-discrimination law.''
The term ``harassment'' does not appear in the text of the anti-bias law known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But the Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that sexual harassment amounts to discrimination if it creates a ``hostile environment'' in the workplace.
In subsequent rulings, the justices said a hostile environment can come about not only by overtly sexual behavior but also by ``discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult ... sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment.''
Scalia's seven-page opinion said, ``We see no justification ... for a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from the coverage of Title VII.'' But he warned lower courts about mistaking ``ordinary socializing in the workplace - such as male-on-male horseplay or intersexual flirtation - for discriminatory conditions of employment.''
All circumstances must be considered, Scalia said and gave the example of a football coach smacking the fanny of a player who's heading onto the field. Nothing illegal there, Scalia said, but that's not necessarily the case when the coach does the same thing to his secretary, male or female.
He said concerns that Title VII will become ``a general civility code for the American workplace'' are misguided.
``That risk is no greater for same-sex than for opposite-sex harassment, and is adequately met by careful attention to the requirements of the statute,'' Scalia said.
He added: ``Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at discrimination because of sex,'' Scalia said. ``The critical issue ... is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed.''
In the Louisiana case, a federal appeals court ruled as it threw out Joseph Oncale's lawsuit that the federal law never applies to same-sex harassment.
His sexual-harassment claim stemmed from four months of work in 1991 as a roustabout assigned to a Gulf of Mexico oil rig with Sundowner Offshore Services.
Oncale's lawsuit against Sundowner and three men said he was sexually assaulted, battered, touched and threatened with rape by his direct supervisor, John Lyons, and a second supervisor, Danny Pippen. Another defendant, coworker Brandon Johnson, was accused of assisting in one of the alleged incidents.
Oncale, who now lives in a small town near Baton Rouge, said he twice reported the situation to his employer's highest-ranking representative on the job site, but no action was taken. He said he quit because he feared the harassment would escalate to rape. All three men named as defendants portrayed their conduct as hazing or locker-room horseplay.
The Supreme Court's decision allows Oncale to take his lawsuit to a jury but does not ensure his ultimate victory.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a one-paragraph statement in which he said he joined the court ruling because it made clear there must be proof of ``discrimination because of sex.''
Thomas' 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing was marked by sensational allegations of sexual harassment.
FALMOUTH - March 6, 1998 Portland Press Herald---- Maine is not a hateful place, and while it may take some work to help people about gays and lesbians, Gov. Angus King believes it can be done.
''Ultimately, for a law to be successful, it has to be written in people's hearts. What we've learned is we've got some work to do,'' King told several hundred people Thursday at the Falmouth Congregational Church.
The meeting, organized by the Maine Speakout Project, the Maine Council of Churches and the Religious Coalition Against Discrimination, was held to discuss what those attending said is an atmosphere of fear and violence caused by the repeal of the state's anti-discrimination law.
''This is an ancient prejudice. This is a deep-seated fear that can only be erased by education... and love. In the state of Maine that will someday happen,'' King said.
And when it happens it will come in the form of a referendum, held during a general election, ''where all of the people will have the chance to express themselves,'' King said.
King pointed out that while the Maine Human Rights Act protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination was repealed Feb. 10, ''yes'' votes were cast by just 15 percent to 16 percent of the state's eligible voters. ''My friends, that is not a mandate,'' King said.
Others who spoke at Thursday night's gathering stressed that prejudice and violence, in any form, cannot be tolerated.
''We are here because we felt it was important, even necessary, to provide an opportunity for representatives of the community to come together for mutual support in the aftermath of the gay rights referendum vote and in response to widespread reports of threats and intimidation against gay and lesbian people which have followed the referendum,'' said Tom Ewell, Executive Director of the Maine Council of Churches.
''In particular, we wanted to express solidarity and support for Dr. Mitchell. Whether or not he was attacked specifically because he is a gay man, it is critical that we as a community stand here with him, to assure him of our care, to support him, and, ultimately, to support each other, gay and straight, in the shadow of this unprovoked act of violence.''
Dr. Charles Mitchell, 40, of Portland, was brutally attacked on President's Day during a mid-day run through the town.
He was later found by a passing motorist, dazed and bleeding with his jaw and cheekbone broken, several miles away from where he began his run at Falmouth High School.
Mitchell, a psychiatrist, is gay.
The attorney general's office is investigating whether the attack was a hate crime because Mitchell had stickers on his van associated with the gay community.
In the meantime, police said they found the red pickup truck Mitchell saw pass him several times during his run, have talked with the owner and determined he was not involved in the incident, Falmouth Police Detective Tom Brady said Thursday.
However, Brady said police do have a new lead to follow, but declined to provide any details.
Mitchell, who spoke at Thursday's gathering, said he doesn't believe his attacker is a bad person, but rather a good person who, for whatever reason, behaved badly.
And people don't behave badly without having learned the behavior elsewhere.
''We must be examples to our children,'' Mitchell said. ''Let's not respond to hate and violence with hate and violence. Let's be an example of good moral behavior, understanding and tolerance. It is the right thing to do.''
Staff writer David Hench also contributed to this report.
JUNEAU, Alaska - February 27, 1998 ---- A judge ruled Friday against Alaska's ban on same-sex marriages, ordering the state to show why it should be able to regulate who people marry.
The ruling does not legalize same-sex unions in Alaska, but forces the state to prove a compelling reason why such unions should be illegal.
Last year, Jay Brause and Gene Dugan of Anchorage challenged a 1996 law banning same-sex marriage, trying to force the state to recognize their relationship of nearly 20 years. The gay couple argued the law violates the Alaska Constitution.
On Friday, Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski threw out the state's bid to dismiss the case and ruled that choosing a partner is a fundamental right. ``It is the decision itself that is fundamental, whether the decision results in a traditional choice or the nontraditional choice Brause and Dugan seek to have recognized,'' Michalski wrote. ``The same Constitution protects both.''
Reached at work, Dugan refused to discuss the ruling.
The couple's attorney, Robert Wagstaff, was out of town and unavailable for comment.
John Gaguine, the assistant attorney general who argued the case, said the state will likely ask the state Supreme Court to review Michalski's decision.
Proving a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage may be difficult, advocates say.
``The state is going to have to have a very good justification,'' said Matt Coles, director of the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties in New York.
State Sen. Loren Leman, who sponsored the ban in the Alaska Legislature, said he had little confidence in the Supreme Court, adding that a constitutional amendment might be needed to overcome the judge's decision.
``If judges can't read the constitution any better than this then we will clearly state it in the constitution,'' Leman said.
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, February 24, 1998 --- In a startling accord, the gay community and the religious right have agreed that couples of any sexual orientation should not be allowed to register their partnerships with the Santa Clara County recorder's office.
But both groups reached this conclusion for vastly different reasons. The local gay community wants the board of supervisors to repeal the domestic partners registry today rather than put it on the June ballot, where it would face strong opposition from Christian fundamentalists and others.
"We don't want to get into an ugly slugfest for a piece of paper that means almost nothing," said Wiggsy Sivertsen, a professor of sociology at San Jose State University and a leading lesbian activist.
Adopted by other jurisdictions, including Palo Alto and San Francisco, the domestic partners registry has no legal weight, but would entitle unmarried heterosexuals and same-sex partners to benefits such as hospital visitation rights, frequent-flier miles and other privileges enjoyed by married couples. The registry differs from other laws such as one passed in San Francisco that requires city contractors to offer the same benefits to gay and unmarried couples that they offer married couples.
The board unanimously approved the registry 18 months ago, but it never went into effect because a coalition of taxpayer groups and evangelical congregations collected 60,000 signatures to force the board to either repeal it or put the measure on the June ballot.
With the June election looming, members of the board last week consulted with each of the parties in the debate, only to find they were oddly united in their preference for having it repealed.
One leading opponent, the Rev. Peter Wilkes of the South Hills Community Church, said he met with gay activists this summer to persuade them not to fight the repeal. To the religious right, giving any recognition to gay couples violates family values and biblical injunctions, he said. About 1,400 opponents from religious groups and the Santa Clara Taxpayers Association attended the board's last hearing on the issue in the summer of 1996.
"I have no doubt that we would have won by a large majority," Wilkes said.
"Everyone recognized that it could only be a divisive issue, so our interests at this time coincide. Of course, they wish we hadn't done the referendum campaign in the first place and we wish the issue had never come before the board."
Bowing to the unusual unanimity, the board today is expected to repeal the registry.
"It seems to me we would be acting more responsibly to begin to address the real issues facing the gay community like hate crimes and AIDS instead of engaging in a campaign, that in the long run, doesn't provide the gay and lesbian community anything but symbolic support," said Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Blanca Alvarado.
Alvarado said she may convene a series of community forums on gay issues similar to the race forums arranged by President Clinton.
Not everyone is happy to see the potentially divisive issue go away. Supervisor Joe Simitian said he is having difficulty with the prospect of voting against his basic convictions.
"I'm concerned that if we repeal it, it could be easily construed as a message of intolerance and that's not a message I want to send," Simitian said.
While he was on the Palo Alto City Council, Simitian voted to establish the domestic partners registry there. Although the registry is available to all county residents, only 75 couples have paid the $35 fee to register since it was established two years ago, according to the city clerk's office.
In San Francisco, 4,514 couples have registered since Valentine's Day 1991, when the registry was opened. In Santa Clara County, the registry was proposed by then-Supervisor Mike Honda, who is now a local assemblyman. Honda, who was running for the Legislature, was opposed by a gay candidate, Ken Yeager.
Yeager said this week that he hasn't made up his mind whether to support the repeal, but is leaning toward avoiding a referendum on the issue. The referendum campaign would cost the gay community at least $300,000 to mount at a time when activists are trying to raise money to build a new community center. The timing is also considered poor, activists said, because Maine voters just defeated an anti-discrimination law even though the gay community outspent opponents by about 5 to 1.
Vaughn Beckman, executive director of the Council of Churches, an ecumenical group that represents about 100 local congregations and originally supported the registry, said the group struggled before agreeing to support the repeal.
"We still believe in the dignity of all people, including gays and lesbians, but we don't want to see the religious community in Santa Clara County divided," Beckman said.
In contrast, the Santa Clara County Taxpayers Association, the local government watchdog group that led the referendum drive in 1996, believes the registry would lead to passage of potentially costly domestic partners benefits, such as San Francisco's requirement that companies doing business with the city provide benefits to gay and unmarried couples, which has been challenged in the courts.
But Leslie Katz, a gay San Francisco supervisor, said many cities simply establish a registry and leave it at that.
HONOLULU STAR- February 20, 1998 --- The state House has passed a bill to put the question of a constitutional convention on the general election ballot this fall.
The Judiciary Committee sent the measure to the House to clear up confusion following a 1996 general election vote no a constituional convention.
In that election, yes votes outnumbered no votes by just 3,716, but there were more than 45,000 blank votes.
The Hawai`i State Supreme Court ruled blank and spoiled ballots should be counted in determining the majority of votes cast and decided against a constitutional convention.
The U.S. District Court overrulled the Hawai`i Supreme Court, and the matter is now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"This bill does not say that we should have a Con Con," Judiciary Chairman Terrance Tom (D, Kane`ohe) told the House. "This bill just says, 'Let the people decide.'"
Minority floor leader Quentin Kawananakoa (R, Nu`uanu) tried to pass a floor amendment to have the Office of Elections specify that a blank vote would be treated as a not vote.
"The purpose of this amendment is to make sure we don't end up in the same mess we're in now," Kawananakoa said.
But Tom said becuase the Supreme Court did not specify that blank votes were no votes, the amendment could lead to another court challenge.
The Republican amendment faild on a voice vote along party lines. The measure passed unanimously and will now go to the Senate.
PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, February 17, 1998, Portland, ME --- U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said Monday she is working to make hate crimes based on sexual orientation a prosecutable offense under federal civil rights legislation.
''(Under current law) if we see a hate crime committed based on sexual orientation, we don't have the jurisdiction to pursue it,'' she said. Reno also wants to see gays protected from employment discrimination. Reno's support of federal civil rights protection for gays came less than a week after Mainers voted to repeal a statewide gay rights law.
In an hour-long discussion with the editorial board of The Portland Newspapers, Reno also pushed for increased funding for juvenile crime prevention programs; spoke of her aversion to the death penalty, and only vaguely addressed questions about the special prosecutor's office.
''I haven't compared (the number of special prosecutors) to prior administrations,'' Reno said. ''I just try to judge it on the evidence and the law and do what the evidence and the law dictate.''
That, she said, is why she hasn't called for a special prosecutor to investigate Vice President Al Gore, who made fund-raising phone calls from the White House and attended a Democratic Party event at a Buddhist temple in 1996 designed to raise money for the party.
''What I have to have is specific and credible evidence that the person has violated the law. I don't have it,'' she said.
Reno said she has some thoughts about how the special prosecutor law might be changed when it comes up for reauthorization in 1999, but she did not say whether that would include narrowing the scope of what is to be investigated. Reno said when a potential matter for investigation comes up, she considers it strictly in the light of the existing law, not what she thinks the role of the special prosecutor should be.
On other issues, Reno said:
Any effort to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes should be based on appropriate studies, which do not exist but are under way.
The way to reduce the number of African Americans in jails is the same as to reduce the overall number: more crime prevention programs; more work with teenagers; more job training; and, an economy with appropriate jobs for young people as they enter the work force.
She is glad to see Congress beginning to confirm President Clinton's appointments for federal judgeships. ''When 10 percent of the judicial positions are vacant and speedy justice is often the justice that is needed, those positions are so important.''
She is personally opposed to the death penalty. She is particularly worried that indigent defendants may not get adequate legal representation. She told the story of a man who sat in prison for 21 years until she, as a prosecutor in Florida, was asked to reinvestigate and found there was little credible evidence to convict the man. He was freed.
''I will never forget looking at that man as he walked out of that courtroom a free man,'' she said. She has created a department within the Justice Department with the role of ensuring protection against inappropriately levying the death penalty.
WASHINGTON BLADE, February 13, 1998 --- In what seems to have become the Gay movement's "rite of March," leaders of several national Gay organizations agreed yesterday to put plans for the Millennium March On Washington in the year 2000 on "pause" to discuss various concerns around its timing, its purpose, and its message.
During a one-hour conference call yesterday with Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, leaders of at least six other national Gay organizations expressed serious problems with the way HRC and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) announced the march plans in a press release Feb. 4.
Birch said yesterday, "We decided a much larger group of Gay people will come together to talk about both a national march and a 50-state march. We will begin that process next week."
"People just want more dialogue," said Birch. "We agreed to just pause and have more people at the table."
Birch added that she believes the march will go ahead but that "I agree that we should talk about it more."
Lorri Jean, a leader of a group representing Gay community centers across the country, said the people on the conference call yesterday agreed to put plans for the Millennium March on "pause." The conference call participants also agreed to put on "pause" an idea that had been circulated by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to hold a march on the 50 state capitals in 1999.
"We all collectively talked about the process - that happened too quickly for an appropriate amount of consideration and discussion with an appropriately broad group, and everybody agrees with that," said Jean, referring to the Millennium March. "In the excitement, things just happened too fast and there needs to be some more discussion. We're all pausing to discuss, to assess where support is, and to make some decisions about both the 50-state march and the national march. We want to make sure that whatever happens is in the best interest of our movement."
"Is the Millennium March on or off?" asked a reporter.
"Both marches are on the table for discussion," said Jean.
"Are both marches happening?" asked a reporter.
"That remains to be seen," said Jean. "We had a collective expression of a desire to have everybody moving forward in good faith with the best interests of our movement at heart. And I am personally inspired by the effort people seemed to want to put in to accomplish that."
The controversy surrounding the Millennium March began soon after HRC and MCC issued a press release Feb. 4, announcing that such a march would take place in the spring of the year 2000 and listing eight organizations which had already signed on as supporting the plan. But by Monday of this week, officials with several national Gay groups - including many of those which had endorsed the march last week - were expressing anger and concern that HRC and MCC failed to adequately consult other Gay leaders before publicizing their call for such a march. The prevailing sentiment, that HRC and MCC had "jumped the gun" with their announcement, prompted at least two conference calls this week involving officials of at least six Gay civil rights groups. According to a number of sources familiar with those discussions, the leaders of at least two groups said they might withdraw their support from the march. Most agreed to ask HRC and MCC to consult with other organizations before proceeding any further on their plans and agreed that a smaller group of Gay leaders would engage in yesterday's conference call with Birch. According to Jean, participating in yesterday's call, in addition to herself and Birch, were Joan Garry of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); Kerry Lobel of NGLTF; Mandy Carter of the National Black Gay and Lesbian Leadership Forum; Paula Ettelbrick of the Federation of Statewide Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Political Organizations; and Martin Ornelas-Quintero of the National Latino/a Lesbian and Gay Organization (LLEGO).
"Everyone says we've got to have more conversation about this," said Carter of the Leadership Forum. "They're not saying this [the march] won't happen. It's like saying let's put this on hold while we think about it and talk about it."
The controversy around the Millennium March is reminiscent of the heated discussions which took place in the early stages of planning the last march, in 1993. In May 1991, a group of about 90 activists from around the country met to debate whether to have the 1993 march-disagreeing over its timing, expressing concern that it would detract from the 25th anniversary celebration of the Stonewall Rebellion, lobbying that the march would be more beneficial during a presidential election year, and urging support for a separate event to involve marches on the 50 state capitals.
Among the concerns raised this week was that HRC and MCC had not given other organizations enough information about the proposed Millennium March nor enough opportunity to explore the feasibility, timing, and goals for the march. Many of the representatives were angry that HRC had called their organizations to sign on as supporters of the march less than 24 hours before a press release went out announcing that the march would take place.
Meanwhile, HRC's Birch disclosed this week that the organizers of the march have already scrapped an idea for an actual march along the streets of the nation's capital, which had been the focal point of the three previous national Gay marches on Washington, in 1979, 1987, and 1993. Instead, said Birch, the Millennium March will consist of a mass rally of Gay people and their supporters on the mall, similar to some of the more recent massive political "marches" -such as the "Million Man March" and that of the "Promise Keepers." Birch said HRC and MCC decided to do away with the street march itself after carefully assessing the past three Gay national marches. Birch said the two groups determined that more than half of the crowds missed the rallies of the past three Gay marches because it took as long as six hours for many marchers to proceed from the starting point to the finishing point of the march.
"We're less interested in getting people from one place to another than in bringing our people together in an historic assembly that will capture the nation's attention," Birch said. She said the event's name, "Millennium March on Washington For Equal Rights," was intended more as a "figurative" term to represent plans for people to "assemble on the mall to communicate with each other and with the nation."
But those plans were thrown into controversy this week as representatives of several national Gay organizations began airing their upset behind the scenes over how HRC and MCC went about calling for the "march." Many felt that the decision to hold an event seeking to involve the Gay community nationally should have been discussed with other organizations in order to reach an agreement on the merits of its timing, its purpose, and what message it is intended to convey to the general public. Others expressed upset that their organizations were never consulted - not even at the last minute - and that the march in the year 2000 might undermine resources and support for an idea to stage a march next year on all 50 state capitals.
"We pleaded with them to delay issuing their press release so we could have a more extensive discussion," said NGLTF's Executive Director Kerry Lobel.
"I feel no one group has the unilateral right to call a national march on Washington without an open, substantive process of discussion," said Lobel in an interview prior to yesterday's conference call. Lobel noted that NGLTF brought its proposal for the 50-state march for discussion at a "Policy Roundtable" held in Washington last September with representatives of numerous national organizations. "The question I would ask is, 'Why couldn't you wait another month when all your colleagues would be together at the National Policy Roundtable meeting [in Washington, D.C. March 12-13]?"
Lobel said NGLTF is deliberating over how to proceed next.
"This is an evolving process. Our status as an endorsee can change," said Lobel. "The jury is still out on that."
Keith Boykin, executive director of the Leadership Forum, said he would leave the final decision on whether his group should endorse the march to the Forum's board of directors, which meets this Sunday. But LLEGO's Ornelas-Quintero said his organization's support for the Millennium March "remains unwavering."
"We will continue to work to make certain that the process [for organizing the march] is as inclusive as possible," said Ornelas-Quintero, "but we're moving ahead."
A two-page memorandum from Birch, dated Feb. 11, characterized the concerns being raised as "some apprehension surfacing in some quarters, regarding the process and HRC and [MCC's] role in the event."
In the memo, which Birch noted was being written in response to a conference call among other Gay leaders from which "HRC was specifically excluded," she addressed many of the concerns. She noted that Robin Tyler, a concert promoter, was chosen to be "a producer" for the march because she is a "veteran organizer of every past march" and because it was Tyler who originated the idea for a march. Birch also noted that Tyler first approached NGLTF with the idea but that NGLTF "turned the idea down stating their intention to organize a 50 state march on state capitals in 1999."
"Hence, the idea is to have the march in 2000 so as to not conflict with their work in progress," wrote Birch. Birch said Tyler checked "with a variety of national organizations" about the Washington march.
"Robin spoke with most of you," wrote Birch, "and it was our understanding that you endorsed the concept and the name of the march. It was announced when we felt there was critical mass of agreement."
Birch also noted that "It is proposed" that the march organizers form "a wholly separate organization ... to deliver the march."
"Although [MCC] and HRC will provide substantial support and legal guidance ... the march corporation will raise its own revenues, and the distributions of any excess revenues has not been decided," wrote Birch.
Birch concluded the memo by suggesting that a conference call take place involving interested parties, including HRC and MCC. She also suggested the creation of "a 'time out' while each of you explores whether or not your organization would like to participate in this march." While it appears such a "time out" has been agreed upon, it also appears that HRC has agreed to participate in a discussion around other organizations' concerns about the timing, purpose, and feasibility of the march.
MCC's leader, the Rev. Troy Perry, was traveling this week, and an MCC spokesperson said he could not be reached by Blade deadline.
Birch, reached by phone Wednesday, said HRC has received an overwhelmingly positive response to the announcement of the 2000 march. She predicted that "dozens" of Gay groups will have endorsed the event within the next several weeks.
"It is very obvious to me that the time for the next [Gay] march is at the dawn of the new millennium," Birch said. "Right now, the vast majority of Gay, Lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans are not connected to Gay organizations. It will be these people, the rank and file, who will come to this march, in very large numbers."
Birch took exception to complaints that HRC and MCC did not allow more time for Gay activists to deliberate over a march before deciding to go ahead with it. She said HRC and Tyler contacted at least nine national Gay organizations, providing them with details of the march. According to Birch, all of the groups except NGLTF and Lambda expressed strong support for the Millennium March during telephone conversations with Tyler. At Tyler's request, each of the groups, including NGLTF but not Lambda, faxed written endorsements of the march on behalf of their respective organizations. The eight groups which signed on were NGLTF, the Leadership Forum, and GLAAD, as well as the National Latino/a Lesbian and Gay Organization; the National Center for Lesbian Rights; the National Youth Advocacy Coalition; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.
"A critical mass of organizations came on board for the idea to have this march in 2000," said Birch. "So we felt it was perfectly reasonable to get this out [through a press release]."
But Mandy Carter, field organizer for the Leadership Forum, and Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda, said that while they are not opposed to having a march in the year 2000, they are concerned that HRC and MCC made several key decisions about the march without seeking input from a broad cross-section of local, state, and national Gay activists.
Lambda's Cathcart added that he also declined to throw Lambda's endorsement behind the march last week because he was not notified about plans for a march until Tuesday evening, less than 24 hours before Wednesday's press release was to go out.
"It was very late, very last minute," said Cathcart. "There was no time to discuss it, and I was concerned about the lack of discussions and involvement. There was no firm date set for the march, it was still two years out; I didn't understand the urgency" of sending out the press release last Wednesday. Cathcart said his group may eventually decide to endorse the event but that it will do so only after he's had an opportunity to discuss it with his staff and after some questions have been answered about such things as "what the focus of the march is going to be."
Lorri Jean, a co-coordinator of a national group representing Gay community centers around the country and executive director of the largest of those centers (in Los Angeles), said she was not contacted by HRC about the march.
"If they had called me, I would have said that I would not have endorsed it at that time," said Jean. "I would have wanted more discussion. I personally have some questions about whether a march on Washington is the best way for the community to focus its time and money."
"These things cost millions of dollars and huge amounts of time and human resources," said Jean. "I personally believe that groups like HRC and NGLTF have things well in hand in Washington right now. Where I believe our movement is weak is at the grassroots level. We need to activate our movement on the state and local levels so that we can begin to deliver to Washington some of the grassroots support our national leaders so badly need. ... I'm not convinced that it's time [for a national March on Washington], but I'm not convinced that it's not time either." Jean said she believes national Gay organization leaders should take time to discuss the feasibility of the march.
Concerning arguments that a national Gay march will divert too much money and resources from other Gay-related causes, Birch said past experience has shown that money spent by Gay people - as well as other Americans - on large, national events cannot be simply "transferred" to other causes or projects.
"That's not how things work in philanthropy and politics," said Birch. "People are not going to give the equivalent of their airfare or lodging to a specific campaign or cause."
Birch said HRC and MCC will soon put together an organizing committee that will include representation from all the national Gay political groups. She said that similar to the 1993 march, the 2000 march will include a full array of related events, such as workshops, meetings, forums, and social events.
"This will be positive and affirming and a good way to for us to kick off the new century," she said. "It will be a celebration of our community, a place where everyone can be comfortable, including our children and members of our families."
Added Birch, "There has never been a scenario of a [Gay] march on Washington that has not resulted in some turmoil. But at the end of the day, an incredible event gets delivered to the nation."
Las Vegas Sun, February 13, 1998 --- Las Vegas Mayor Jan Laverty Jones might be one of only two mayors nationwide that have signed a proclamation supporting same-sex marriages.
The document states that Jones is in full support of every adult's right to be married -- regardless of sexual orientation. Thursday was proclaimed "National Freedom to Marry Day" in the city of Las Vegas.
Signing the proclamation was not just another mayoral public relations stunt, according to Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union Nevada Chapter.
"The mayor should be applauded for her courage and for her vision and for her principals in supporting 'Freedom to Marry Day,'" Peck said.
It's believed that the mayor of San Francisco is the only other mayor in the country that signed the proclamation, he said.
Local gay and lesbian activists say they will try to get a law passed in the 1999 Legislature that would allow same-sex marriages in Nevada.
"We deserve the same rights as every other American," said Anne Mulford, board member of the Southern Nevada Association of Pride Inc. and member of the gay and lesbian task force. "To have the endorsement of such a respected figure gives us more credibility."
Assemblyman Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, said he doesn't have any idea how the issue would fly in the 1999 Legislature.
"That's a topic that's really never been broached in the state before," he said. "It'd be premature to make a prediction about it since we don't even know the makeup of the Assembly or what the new governor will be like, though it certainly would inspire a lively debate."
Opponents of the law held a lead of 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent with 92 percent of the precincts reporting, according to a tabulation by the Bangor Daily News.
The special "people's veto'' election marked the second time in less than three years the state's residents have faced the thorny issue of gay rights.
"It wasn't out of a sense of wanting to hurt anyone ... it was out of a sense we've all had for a long time that there is a right or wrong in terms of human sexuality,'' Maine Christian Civic League President Michael Heath told supporters.
The contest pitted conservative Christian groups against a coalition of civil rights activists, business leaders and Gov. Angus King.
Leaders of Maine Won't Discriminate, which supported the law, refused to concede defeat. Enforcement of the law has been on hold pending the results of this election.
"We're going to have civil rights in my lifetime. I thought I was going to taste it tomorrow morning. We may still taste it,'' Maine Treasurer Dale McCormick said.
Voter turnout was low, about 33 percent, but higher than officials had projected. The repeal question was the only item on Tuesday's ballot.
"I know there are a whole lot of people out there who wished they had voted no,'' McCormick told WCSH-TV.
The law, enacted last year, would have barred discrimination based on sexual preference in housing, employment, public accommodation and credit. Opponents quickly mounted a petition drive to force this referendum.
Maine was one of 11 states — including all those in New England — that had such an anti-discrimination law.
Legislators had defeated several similar measures over the past two decades. A bill was approved by lawmakers in 1993 but vetoed by then-Gov. John McKernan.
Maine voters defeated a 1995 measure to prohibit local communities from adopting gay rights ordinances. Only Portland, Maine's largest city, and a small neighboring island community have such rules.
The law's supporters banked much of their campaign on the popularity of Gov. King, who appeared in television and radio ads saying people should not lose their jobs because of their sexual preference.
In response, opponents of gay rights called homosexuality morally wrong and disputed the idea that homosexuals are discriminated against in Maine.
By Rachel Van Dongen
ROLL CALL, February 5, 1998 --- With ex-Rep. Bob Dornan (R-Calif) glaring from the third row, the House Oversight Committee's contentious, 14-month probe into alleged fraudulent voting in California's 46th district came to a fittingly dramatic end yesterday with the panel's election task force unanimously recommending that the case be closed.
An elated Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D), who finally had the cloud lifted from her 1996 election, called it a "victory for the citizens and voters of Orange County."
Surrounded by a pyramid of 38 cardboard boxes filled with confidential Immigration and Naturalization Service data, task force Chairman Vern Ehlers (R-Mich) announced that the investigation had identified 748 documented illegal voters, 231 short of Sanchez's 979-vote win over Dornan in 1996.
"It's my recommendation to the task force that we dismiss the election contest," Ehlers said.
An animated Dornan vowed that either he or another member of his family would challenge Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) or seek a rematch with Sanchez.
"There will be a Dornan name somewhere on the ballot on June 2," Dornan said. "I've got a lot of mileage left on this Irish body."
Ehlers, who voiced objections to being labeled a racist by Democrats throughout the election probe, said that the task force had found 196 additional instances of "circumstantial" illegal voting, but that he could not in good faith add those instances to the 748 total.
"[748] is the number I think we have to consider," Ehlers said.
The task force -- made up of Ehlers and Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md) -- voted unanimously to approve a resolution to dismiss the election contest, which called Dornan's claims "credible" and chastised the INS and the Justice Department for "lack of cooperation" throughout the proceedings.
House Oversight Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif) was not present at the task force meeting, but presided over a meeting of the full panel late Wednesday afternoon in which the resolution to dismiss was approved on a vote of 8-1, with only Rep. John Mica (R-Fla) dissenting. The committee also approved a motion to allow Dornan and Sanchez to submit their legal fees to the panel for possible reimbursement.
The resolution will still have to be voted on by the full House, which may happen as early as next week.
Thomas said that this investigation had "laid a foundation" for future contested election probes, and that he intended to propose reform of the electoral system as a result of the Sanchez investigation.
"This is campaign reform," Thomas said, who concluded his remarks by thanking Dornan for his "truth and fervor for making sure that the laws of the land are followed."
Although Democrats were pleased with the outcome of the probe, both House Oversight ranking member Sam Gejdenson (D-Conn) and Hoyer decried Republican tactics throughout the case and said that it would never be known for whom those 748 alleged non-citizens voted.
Gejdenson said that the language of the resolution was intended to make Republicans "feel good about the witch hunt they went on."
"It is clear that this was a vendetta from a previous battle," he said in a thinly veiled reference to the 1985 election contest surrounding Republican Mike McIntyre (Ind).
In a statement released Wednesday night, Gejdenson and Hoyer claimed that of the 748 "non-citizen voters," 400 of those were "undeniably citizens" at the time of the election.
Sanchez herself did not come to the panel's meeting, but attended a press conference afterwards to celebrate her victory with House Democrats who waged a ceaseless procedural campaign on her behalf on the House floor.
"The actions of Republicans on this issue have been shameful," House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo) said, adding that the probe was the "largest waste of Congressional time and money I have seen."
"They impugned the integrity and standing of Loretta Sanchez's victory -- and then cast aspersions about the political participation of Latinos who exercised their constitutional rights in the 1996 election," Gephardt said.
Democrats had charged that the probe was a racist attack on a Hispanic woman and would cost the GOP dearly within the growing Hispanic voting population in the 1998 elections.
"I believe that the actions of the Republican party for the last 14 months will not soon be forgotten in the minds of millions of Hispanic voters across the country," said Rep. Martin Frost (Texas), the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
But the real action at Wednesday's meeting was the sideshow created by Dornan, accompanied to the meeting by wife Sallie and daughter Terri. In vintage "B-1 Bob" form, the red-haired Dornan lectured reporters from behind the stack of boxes that signified his defeat, and held forth in the hallways on subjects ranging from Chappaquiddick to Sanchez's "marriage of convenience."
"This is secret and will remain secret because in here are thousands of non-citizens whose dream is to become a citizen," Dornan said in a photo-op in the hearing room.
"This is the fruits of my labor," he shouted before being told to take the press conference to the hallway.
Dornan left the door open to a challenge to Sanchez by another member of the five-member Dornan clan, or a run by himself in California's June 2 GOP primary for the nomination to face Boxer.
Jim VandeHei contributed to this report.
The team, headed by Dr David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Rockefeller University inNew York, adds that genetic analysis of the sample suggests that the virus first infected people before World War II, "considerably earlier" than previously believed.
This largely refutes the controversial theory that the source of the HIV-AIDS pandemic was a batch of polio vaccine, contaminated by an AIDS-like monkey virus, which was administered to 300,000 adults and children in the Belgian Congo (now Zaire) in 1959. It is more likely that the virus "jumped" to humans from chimpanzees or monkeys decades earlier. Commenting on the research in tomorrow's issue of Nature, Dr Simon Wain-Hobson, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, saidit confirmed suspicions that HIV "had a human history before it went global".
He speculated that the postwar "collapse of European colonialism" caused social,technological and environmental changes which enabled the virus to flourish.
While Dr Ho and his colleagues acknowledged that the factors that "propelled" the initial spread of HIV are unknown, they agreed that population pressure, increased sexual contacts and other social changes were likely to have been involved. "It's very exciting," said Dr Nick Deacon, a molecular biologist and HIV expert at Melbourne's Macfarlane Burnet Centre for Medical Research.
"It takes us back in time and helps us work out where it [HIV] came from, how old it is and how it diverged," said Dr Deacon of the finding, announced yesterday.
The revealing blood sample, described in this week's edition of Nature, was one of 1,213 samples obtained in Africa between 1959 and 1982. The donor was an adult Bantu man who lived in Leopoldville in the Belgian Congo (Now Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo).
Because of the age and relatively poor condition of the sample, D Tuofu Zhu, now at Washington University, Dr Paul Sharp, of the University of Nottingham, and Dr Bette Korber, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico took exceptional care to ensure that the genetic material they extracted from the sample and analysed was not contaminated by modern viruses.
Dr Ho had to withdraw an earlier report on a sample from a British sailor who died of an AIDS-like illness in 1959, when the blood was later shown to be contaminated, probably with modern material.
According to Dr Ho's group, there is considerable genetic difference between the two contemporary strains of HIV capable of infecting humans - HIV-1, the dominant strain, and HIV-2 - and the many sub-strains of each.
After comparing the genetic make-up of the old virus with that of today's viruses, they argued that for such genetic diversity to have evolved the two strains must have diverged from a single ancestral virus, long before the end of World War II.
Dr Deacon cautioned that "these things are not necessarily 100 per cent accurate". To be certain that HIV emerged early on, he said it would be necessary to find another sample of similar age, or even earlier.
That, said Dr Wain-Hobson, demonstrated the value of searching through "laboratory freezers" for collections of blood products which might shed new light on old mysteries.
![[Map]](images/mapicon.gif)
![[Index]](images/indxicon.gif)
![[Comment]](images/cmnticon.gif)
![[Search]](images/srchicon.gif)
![[Home]](images/homeicon.gif)
![[Up]](images/upicon.gif)
![[Previous]](images/previcon.gif)
![[Next]](images/nexticon.gif)
www.glinn.com Copyright © 2008 by GLINN Media Corporation