During the trial, which is expected to last throughout the week, lawyers for the plaintiff will produce numerous experts who will testify that the law is harmful to Florida children waiting to be adopted.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is bringing the suit, argues that the law is based on prejudice and stereotypes and fails to serve any legitimate government interest. Thus, the ACLU argues, the law violates the equal protection guarantee of the Florida Constitution. Florida is one of only two states in the nation with laws that explicitly ban gay and lesbian adoptions.
The case is brought on behalf of June Amer, a Broward County resident whose adoption application was rejected by the state because of her sexual orientation. She is scheduled to testify on the first day of trial, along with a psychologist and other witnesses who would like to be eligible to adopt.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the challenge, said the decision by a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sends a clear message that states may not keep lesbian and gay students from meeting and talking on campuses.
"This decision affirms the right of lesbian and gay students to meet and discuss their common interests like everyone else," said Matt Coles, director of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, who argued the case in January. "Colleges should be a place of open discourse and equal opportunity. This law contradicted that purpose, and sought to exclude lesbian and gay students from the fabric of campus life."
"This ruling should spell an end to efforts by anti-gay extremists to discriminate against lesbian and gay students on college campuses," Coles added.
Recognizing that "facial invalidation of a statute is strong medicine," the federal appeals court nonetheless ruled that the Alabama law violates the First Amendment on its face, saying it "would have to ignore the Supreme Court's instructions and rewrite the statute for it to pass constitutional muster."
The decision, handed down late yesterday, was written by Judge Joel F. Dubina and joined by Judges Susan H. Black and William C. O'Kelley. Attorneys for Alabama announced they will not appeal the ruling.
The contested statute, Section 16-1-28 of the Alabama's Education Code, sought to bar "any college or university from spending public funds or using public facilities ... to sanction, recognize, or support any group that promotes a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws" of the state.
The law swept through the Alabama legislature in 1992 after officials at Auburn University granted official recognition to a gay student group there. The ACLU brought its challenge when the state invoked the recently enacted law against the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance at the University of South Alabama, a state-run college in Mobile.
The alliance had sought official recognition from the university in order to further its mission to create a supportive environment for gay, lesbian and bisexual students, as well as to foster discussion about homophobia and AIDS prevention.
The ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project is joined in the case by the ACLU of Alabama, with Fern Singer of Birmingham serving as its cooperating attorney.
HONOLULU, HI - April 30, 1997, MAUI NEWS/The Associated Press---- Gay and lesbian couples could be walking hand-in-hand into state Department of Health offices in less than three months to sign up for many of the rights and benefits now enjoyed by married couples.
Hawai`i's voters, however, are expected to make sure in a vote next year that these couples don't get a traditional marriage license.
Hawai`i's Legislature on Tuesday approved a bill to make Hawai`i the first state to grant same-sex couples such things as inheritance rights, the right to sue for wrongful death, spousal benefits for insurance and state pensions, and similar rights.
If signed by Gov. Ben Cayetano, who supports the concept, it would take effect July 1. There is no residency requirement.
A second bill approved Tuesday puts on the 1998 general election ballot a proposed state constitutional amendment clarifying that the Legislature has the right to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Senate approval was unanimous, while in the House, Reps. Eric Hamakawa, Scott Saiki, David Tarnas, Ed Case, Hermina Morita and Roy Takumi voted "no." Case and Tarnas expressed concern that religious groups were imposing their morality on state law.
Public opinion polls over the past several years show that more than 70 percent of Hawai`i's voters oppose legalizing same-sex marriages.
"Hawai`i has a long and proud history of tolerance and protection of minority rights . . . a natural expression of a multi-racial, multi-cultural society, whose beliefs we in Hawai`i describe as the spirit of aloha," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Terrance Tom, a key negotiator on the benefits bill.
The bill "provides the legal framework for nontraditional couples to enjoy those basic legal benefits which provide a measure of financial, personal and emotional protection," Tom said.
The 100-page bill establishing "reciprocal beneficiaries" also would offer such rights to other pairs living together who could not marry, such as a widowed mother and her unmarried son.
Rep. Mark Moses, who opposed the bill, said there is no clear idea of the financial costs of extending the benefits to same-sex couples.
"We're rushing into fiscal darkness without so much as a flashlight," he said.
Lawmakers contend the state Supreme Court erred in its interpretation of the state Constitution in its landmark 1993 decision that denying three same-sex couples marriage licenses in 1990 was unconstitutional gender discrimination unless the state showed a compelling reason to do so.
After a trial in September, a Circuit Court judge ruled that the state had failed to show a compelling reason. The case remains on appeal before the state Supreme Court.
Tom said he hopes the high court will not act on the case until Hawai`i's voters have a chance to vote on the amendment.
"To act before the people have a chance to speak would rock the very foundations of our government," he said.
Sen. Matt Matsunaga, co-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the proposed amendment marks the Legislature's "commitment to put to rest the public furor over this issue."
Gay and lesbian activists have denounced both bills as a sellout of their rights they feel they won under the Supreme Court's 1993 ruling.
Tracey Bennett, a leader of the Marriage Project Hawai`i, which has been pressing for legalization of same-sex marriages, said lawmakers traded some benefits "for allowing the tyranny of the majority to prevail."
Attorney Dan Foley, who represents the three same-sex couples denied marriage licenses, said what the bills do "is to deny rights because both houses are working on the assumption that unless they do something the plaintiffs will prevail and have equal rights, meaning marriage."
There's no guarantee the Supreme Court will hold off a final ruling to legalize same-sex marriages in Hawai`i just because the Legislature approves the two bills, Foley said.
Hawai`i's legal case on same-sex marriages prompted legislatures across the country to consider preemptive action act because the U.S. Constitution says marriages performed in one state must be recognized in all.
In response, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to deny federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowing states not to recognize same-sex unions licensed in other states. President Clinton signed it in September.
Florida would become the 19th state acting not to recognize same-sex unions under a bill sent to Gov. Lawton Chiles on Tuesday.
SALEM, OR April 30, 1997 --- After single-handedly shutting down the Oregon House of Representatives two weeks ago in a successful attempt to move an historic gay rights bill to the floor, openly-gay state Rep. Chuck Carpenter (R) paved the way for an overwhelming vote in favor of his bill yesterday, which would outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Oregon.
The 40-20 vote in favor of passage showed widespread, bi-partisan support for the bill, which Carpenter and Log Cabin Oregon President Jerry Keene authored and pushed among legislators this year. House Speaker Lynn Lundquist (R) joined Carpenter and 10 other Republicans in supporting the bill, which now moves on to the state Senate.
"This vote is to nudge our society in a kinder direction," Carpenter said. "Workers in this state need to have the peace of mind that they don't have to go to work in fear."
"This historic vote proves the value of gays and lesbians being on the inside of the Republican majority," said Richard Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans. "We are very proud of Chuck, and his success proves that the gay community can only succeed if we have a seat at the table in both political parties."
An indication of Carpenter's success in gaining Republican support came in the reaction from anti-gay leader Lon Mabon of the Oregon Citizens Alliance. "It shows that we don't have as many Republicans as we thought," Mabon told the Statesman Journal.
Carpenter used a procedural tactic to shut down the state House two weeks earlier, demanding that his bill be moved to the House Commerce Committee from the Judiciary Committee, where it had stalled. The GOP House leadership bowed to Carpenter's request and the bill subsequently passed the Commerce Committee in an overwhelming vote of 8-1, sending the bill to the House floor for yesterday's historic vote. If Carpenter's bill is signed into law, it will make Oregon the tenth state to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Log Cabin Republicans is the nation's largest gay and lesbian Republican organization, with 50+ chapters nationwide and over 11,000 members.
TUCSON, AZ (ON) (April 30) - During their weekly meeting, the Tucson Mayor and Council approved a measure, 6-0, to extend health care and dental benefits to the"domestic partners" of Gay and Lesbian city employees.
The City of Tucson becomes the 47th governmental body to extend health care and dental benefits to the "domestic partners" of Gay or Lesbian or unmarried heterosexual employees. As first reported in The Observer, the Pima County Board of Supervisors, last month, agreed to extend insurance benefits to all unmarried domestic partners, but delayed final action until eligibility criteria are devised.
Debate on the city proposal was short. Beverly Gin, a leader of the group of city employees who asked the council to consider extending insurance benefits to same-sex "domestic partners," said her group has no position on whether straight couples should get the same consideration.
Gin urged the council to act quickly on the proposal for same-sex partners, so they can sign up during the next open enrollment period for city insurance plans.
Marty Limvina, a self described tax-payer from "Tucson, Wisconsin" said the city should not, "sock the tax-payers by condoning lifestyles that are not according to the Bible." Limvina said the city should promote family values by reading the Bible and not condoning lifestyles that are "morally indefensible."
The City Council then discussed the criteria for who would be eligible for "domestic partner" benefits. According to Jack Redavid and Lynn Greenawalt from the city's Human Resources department, employees who want to add same-sex domestic partners to their insurance need only sign an affidavit that they are committed to a long-term monogamous relationship.
The cost to extend coverage to extend medical and dental insurance to the domestic partners of Gay and Lesbian city employee's, about two-dozen is expected to be $27,000. Extending coverage to all unmarried "domestic partners" would cost an estimated $127,000. The City of Tucson pays $15 million annually for health care benefits for employees.
Councilmember Steve Leal "was not present" when the vote was taken. Leal stated he didn't want to vote against the proposal before the City Council, but couldn't support the measure because he said it didn't include adequate criteria for who is eligible for city insurance coverage and didn't include unmarried heterosexual couples.
Leal said the city needs to require more of a commitment "than just having the same mailing address." He stated the city should study the policies of other governments that offer insurance to unmarried couples.
The Councilmember said that proposal before the Council could be in violation of the city's 1977 Anti-Discrimination (Human Relations) Ordinance and could subject the city to litigation resulting in the whole ordinance possibly being thrown out. Leal cited Section 17-12 (b) of the ordinance, which reads:
Prohibited acts. (B) For an employer, because of race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, age physical handicap not related to job performance, national origin, sexual or affectional preference, or marital status, to refuse to hire or employ any person or to bar or to discharge from employment such person, or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
Leal reiterated his support for extending medical and dental benefits to the "domestic partners" of not only Gay and Lesbian employees, but also unmarried heterosexual partners. He said that he wants to be inclusive, granting equal rights and benefits to all and not exclusive, which could be perceived as discrimination.
Councilmember Michael Crawford requested before the vote that the city look into the possibility of extending benefits to all unmarried "domestic partners."
Tucson now joins such cities as Chicago, Illinois, Ann Arbor, MI, San Francisco and Berkeley, CA, New York, NY, Baltimore, MD.
The state, which already prohibits gay marriages, would join 18 other states that have passed similar laws to offset a move in Hawaii to challenge a ban on same-sex marriages.
``For 6,000 years of recorded history, marriage has meant a relationship between one man, one woman and there's no reason to change that now,'' said Sen. John Grant, R-Tampa, and a leading supporter of the ban.
Critics said the bill discriminated against gays and would hurt tourism and the economy.
``This bill sends a message that Florida is an intolerant state,'' said Sen. Howard Forman, D-Pembroke Pines.
Chiles told reporters he hasn't made a decision about the bill.
``That's one it looks like I'm going to have to look at,'' he said.
Gay activists said the decision was disappointing but not surprising. Bob Kunst of Miami said lawmakers had no right to try to regulate his lifestyle.
``The last thing I want is a violent, negative, intimidating gang of prostitutes in Tallahassee judging my lovemaking,'' he said. ``If you want my tax dollar you treat me equally.''
Eugene Patron, who writes a column about gays for The Miami Herald, said gay people know many Americans are uncomfortable with same-sex marriages, but many gays still feel it's worth fighting for.
``We really want our relationships to be validated,'' he said.
Same-sex couples often face legal problems when one dies or is seriously injured because no state or country recognizes their union. The difficulties include getting coverage by a partner's health plan.
President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act last fall, letting states decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages allowed in other states.
Four years ago, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage violated that state's constitution. The same court is expected to follow its ruling with a decision declaring same-sex marriages legal.
The Florida vote comes on the eve of the episode of ABC's ``Ellen,'' where actress Ellen DeGeneres will become the first homosexual lead character in a prime time show. Lawmakers made no reference to the TV show during debate on the Senate floor Tuesday.
Grant said lawmakers had to pass the legislation (CS-HB 147) to preserve the state's right to make its own decisions about gay marriage, which he said he would never support.
He added that he would be willing in the future to talk about the issue of extending insurance, pension and inheritance rights to gay couples even though he believes homosexual relationships are immoral.
The decision, however, should not be made by a court half way around the world, Grant said, referring to Hawaii's high court.
``This bill will reserve the right of this Legislature to debate, decide and discuss the issue of whether or not we want to extend benefits to gay couples,'' he said.
The legislation showed that Florida was still in the dark ages, warned Sen. Ron Silver, who added that the bill represented an expansion of government interference in the lives of citizens.
``What we are trying to do in this legislation is have government tell people how to live their lives and what to do,'' said Silver, D-North Miami Beach. ``That to me is abhorrent and that to me is of a different era.''
Besides Forman and Silver, three other Democrats voted against the bill: Sens. Skip Campbell of Tamarac, Bill Turner of Miami Shores and Matthew Meadows of Lauderhill.
The House passed the bill late last month on a 97-19 vote.
Phoenix, AZ- April 29, 1997, ECHO MAGAZINE ---- After last year's veto of a hate crimes penalties enhancement measure, after months of heated debate regarding this year's bills and threats of another veto, Arizona Gov. Fife Symington signed the hate crimes bill into law, April 28. The law allows judges to consider the maximum penalties for bias-motivated crimes.
"We are all different from each other in many ways," Symington said as he explained his action. "In a free society, we are not required to like or embrace these differences. However, society does require that the intolerant among us not express their beliefs through criminal conduct."
The governor cited Arizona Department of Public Safety statistics which show hate crimes have increased over the years. Hate crimes, Symington said, cause "fear and terror in an entire group or community x crimes of bigotry and hatred will not be tolerated and will be punished to the fullest extent of the law."
Last year, Symington said he vetoed the hate crimes bill over concerns about how it affects Arizona's death penalty statutes, and his personal beliefs about "the need for this type of legislation."
The bill's passage comes after more than five years of lobbying and coalition building among minority groups committed to overcoming violence. Spearheading the effort were members of the Anti-Defamation League. For their efforts, they were labeled by Arizona Speaker of the House Rep. Don Aldridge (R-Lake Havasu) as a "couple of Jews making an emotional issue" over hate violence.
Rep. Ken Cheuvront (D-Phoenix) credited Rep. Robin Shaw (R-Phoenix) as being "instrumental in its passage."
"This marks the first bill that ever came out of the legislature that protects gays and lesbians," Cheuvront said. He called the law "an acknowledgment that gays and lesbians are singled out for hate crimes."
"It sends the proper message to people in the state that hate crimes are not to be tolerated," said Bill MacDonald, chair of the Arizona Human Rights Fund.
"I believe it will make a major difference," said Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, who worked tirelessly for passage of the bill. It was through the county attorney's office that the hate crimes task force was formed. "This is a real win for everybody and we should celebrate," Romley said.
Washington, D.C. April 28, 1997 (Wire Services) --- Ellen DeGeneres' new girlfriend has followed her out of the closet.Anee Heche, on screen in "Volcano" and "Donnie Brasco," has been linked with TV's DeGeneres since they met in March at Vanity Fair's Oscar party. Heche and DeGeneres both confirm they have a relationship in next week's People magazine. Their comments to columnist Mitchell Fink are in a story about coming out in Hollywood.
Heche tells Fink she is very happy with DeGeneres.
The couple were on the town again during the weekend in Washington, D.C. They were guests of Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter at Saturday's White House Correspondents Association dinner and VP's parties.
NOTE: DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU DON"T WANT TO KNOW A PLAY-BY-PLAY OF THE ENTIRE SHOW BEFOREHAND!
NEW YORK (AP) April 28, 1997 --- Ellen DeGeneres' sitcom character inadvertently ``comes out'' as a lesbian by announcing it over an airport public address system, then is heartbroken when she is rejected by the object of her desire.
ABC unveiled tapes of the much-hyped ``Ellen'' episode on Monday. Stuffed with inside jokes and guest stars, the hour-long show airs Wednesday at 9 p.m. EDT.
DeGeneres' character, Ellen Morgan, becomes the first homosexual lead character in a primetime network show. The actress coupled it with a personal ``coming out,'' and was pictured with her girlfriend, actress Anne Heche, at a party with President Clinton this weekend.
Her show quickly pokes fun at the endless buildup to this moment. It was revealed last September that the gay story line was being considered, but ABC didn't approve it until February.
Ellen is shown at the episode's opening getting ready for an evening date with a male college buddy. Her impatient friends, hoping to get her out of the bathroom, tell Ellen to ``quit jerking us around'' and ``come out already.''
``What is the big deal?'' she asks. ``I've got an hour.'' Ellen reminisces over dinner with her friend and his colleague, Susan, played by actress Laura Dern. The friend, played by Steven Eckholdt, later makes a pass at Ellen in his hotel room. She rejects him. She runs into Dern's character, Susan, and retreats to Susan's hotel room to talk about the episode. The two women become fast friends.
Ellen gets so nervous she spills ice on the floor when Susan reveals she's gay. She even misses the joke when Susan says she wins a toaster oven for a successful ``recruit'' of another lesbian.
After some soul searching about whether she's attracted to men or women - and consultation with a therapist portrayed by Oprah Winfrey - Ellen decides to intercept Susan at the airport.
In a crowded waiting room, Ellen tries to tell Susan of her feelings.
``I did get the joke about the toaster oven,'' she says. Susan presses her to say what she means.
``This is so hard,'' Ellen says, stammering. ``I-I-I think I've realized that I ... I can't even say the word. Why can't I say the word? Why can't I just say it? What is wrong? Why do I have to be so ashamed? Why can't I just say the truth and be who I am? I'm 35 years old and I'm so afraid to tell people. Susan .
She leans forward and inadvertently switches on a public address microphone at the airport ticket counter.
``I'm gay,'' Ellen says over the loudspeaker.
As the studio audience cheers, Susan hugs Ellen. ``How did that feel?'' Susan asks.
``That felt great,'' Ellen says. ``That felt so great.''
Ellen's conflicted feelings, expressed to Winfrey's character, seem poignant when DeGeneres' own personal oddyssey is recalled. When Ellen talks about her reluctance to give up a ``normal'' life with a house surrounded by a picket fence, Winfrey gently reminds her that she can have those things with a woman, too.
Many of the guest stars appear in a supermarket dream sequence in which Ellen imagines that everyone who sees her knows she's gay - singer k.d. lang winks from behind a checkout line advertising ``10 lesbians or less.''
Later, Ellen is crushed when Susan tells her she's involved in an eight-year relationship. Her friends take her to a lesbian coffeehouse - lang is singing - to cheer her up.
The show ends on a lighter note. Singer Melissa Etheridge, playing herself, gleefully approves Ellen's ``application'' forms into gay society. Dern's Susan is handed her toaster oven.
New York, NY April 28, 1997 ---Rich Evans, Senior Vice President of Global Human Resources, today announced that NCR will expand its benefits offerings to include domestic partner benefits (DPBs) for U.S.-based employees. The new DPBs will be introduced over the course of the next eight months, according to the following schedule:
Effective July 1, 1997, NCR will change the terms of its leave of absence policy and its bereavement leave policy. Under the new policy terms, employees with domestic partners will be able to use family, parental, and bereavement leave under the same circumstances as married employees.
Effective January 1, 1998, NCR benefits coverage will be amended to make medical insurance, dental insurance, COBRA insurance continuation and NCR's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) available to the domestic partners of NCR employees and the children of their domestic partners.
For purposes of policy interpretation, domestic partners will be defined as same-sex couples who live together in the context of an exclusive, committed relationship and plan to do so on an indefinite basis.
This announcement places NCR among the ranks of approximately 25 other technology employers (including IBM and HP) which have extended DPBs to their workforces + and positions the company to compete more effectively for individuals with critically needed competencies. Said Evans, "We have a company with a century-old history of attracting top-notch talent. To maintain that legacy, we need to continually scope out the employment environment and make sure our total compensation package enables us to attract the best and the brightest from all professional disciplines related to our business. Offering these benefits places NCR in a more competitive position to recruit and retain not only people with domestic partners + but anyone seeking employment in an inclusive, supportive environment."
Denver,CO, Rocky Mountain News, April 27, 1997 --- Lawmakers reached a tentative compromise Tuesday on a same-sex marriage ban that Gov. Roy Romer apparently would sign.
Shortly after a conference committee resolved differences between House and Senate versions, a spokesman for the governor indicated he probably would sign it.
"The language looks very similar to what he proposed,'' said Romer press secretary Jim Carpenter. "I don't expect he'll have any major objection to it.''
Last year Romer vetoed a similar bill on grounds it was offensive and insulting to the homosexual community, partly because it would have placed the ban in a section of law dealing with incest.
Since then, however, Congress enacted legislation allowing states to adopt laws that would prevent them from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Several states urged such legislation because of a court battle in Hawaii over whether that state must recognize the validity of marriages between gay and lesbian couples.
The Colorado compromise -- which still must be voted upon by the House and the Senate -- was crafted by a conference committee that involved the key legislative players, including Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, the primary sponsor.
Under the compromise, "a marriage only between one man and one woman, licensed, solemnized and registered'' as provided by law will be deemed valid in the state. Musgrave wanted the word "only'' added to the bill, as well as the word "one.''
"If you do not define this narrowly, it's open for everything else,'' Musgrave explained.
The other change in the bill involved wording that declares any marriage contracted outside Colorado that does not satisfy the same marital requirements will not be recognized as valid.
That section is needed because of the Hawaii case, Musgrave said.
Boulder,CO- DAILY CAMERA, April 24, 1997 ---The author of a book about a young Hispanic boy's homosexuality is accusing a Longmont middle school of censorship after the school pulled the book out of a classroom.
"It's clearly censorship," said Gloria Velasquez, whose three books have focused on social pressures affecting Hispanic youths. "I'm disgusted - thoroughly disgusted. I believe in social equality and human justice for everyone - gay, lesbian, disabled, anybody."
Heritage Middle School administrators abruptly took the book, "Tommy Stands Alone," from a class of sixth-grade students who were reading it as a project. The book tells the story of a teen who becomes a social outcast after discovering he is gay. He begins to drink and attempts suicide.
Principal Will Masters said the book is recommended for seventh- through 12th-graders, not sixth-graders, and is inappropriate for the younger readers.
"Our attempt is not to censor the book," Masters said. "It was discontinued, not banned, because of the appropriateness of the selection."
He said the book remains available in the school library.
Velasquez, a Loveland native, was scheduled to come to Heritage and speak in just a few days - an engagement scheduled before the book flap began. Velasquez is a professor at California Poly Tech.
She still plans to come, though she said officials at the school have demanded that she not speak about the book, or even use the words homosexual or gay. So Velasquez has other plans for her discussions with students, about 50 percent of whom are Hispanic.
She said she will discuss censorship instead.
"I will talk about censorship because the students were very angry when that book was taken away. I'll say, "I'm being censored - do you know what censorship is?'"
WASHINGTON Thursday, April 24, 1997-- President Clinton and Vice President Gore today called together civil rights leaders and the lead sponsors of a bipartisan bill to outlaw job discrimination against gay people, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
The purpose of the White House meeting was to map out a strategy for passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the 105th Congress. The bill, which would outlaw job discrimination based on sexual orientation, came within one vote of passing the Senate last year.
"Protecting gay people from job discrimination is basic fairness," said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch, who participated in the meeting. "President Clinton and the bipartisan coalition of members of Congress who support this legislation are completing an unfinished task in this country's civil rights struggle."
Also at the meeting were Dorothy Height, chair of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) and a legend in the struggle for African-American equality; Wade Henderson, executive director of LCCR, a coalition of more than 180 organizations; and the lead sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Sens. James Jeffords, R-Vt., Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., and Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Barney Frank, D-Mass.
The chances of passing ENDA in this Congress are good, according to HRC Legislative Director Winnie Stachelberg.
"Support for ENDA continues to solidify," Stachelberg said. "We are within striking distance of passing this bill in the 105th Congress."
Also today, HRC released results of a new national poll showing that 68 percent of voters favor passage of ENDA. The poll found support for the measure was strong across party lines and in every region of the country -- including among Republicans and voters in the South.
"The results show a record level of broad-based support for ENDA that rises above partisan politics and knows no geographic boundaries," said David M. Smith, HRC's communications director and senior strategist. "Despite peoples' differences, this issue unites voters of all parties and regions on common ground. They want to include gay people in basic legal protection from job discrimination because they share the common-sense American value of fairness."
The poll found that 59 percent of Republicans, 69 percent of independents and 79 percent of Democrats favor ENDA. In addition, voters in every region of the country strongly support the measure, with 77 percent of Americans favoring it in the Northeast, 71 percent in the Midwest, 68 percent in the West, and 62 percent in the South.
The poll also found that the principle underlying ENDA is overwhelmingly popular -- with 80 percent the public saying that "homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities." This reflects a growing trend over the past 20 years toward increased support for equal rights in the workplace for gay people.
Currently, no federal laws protect Americans from job discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only nine states include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination laws: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Last September, the Senate voted 50-49 on ENDA -- the first time either chamber of Congress had ever voted on a gay civil rights bill. The measure is expected to be reintroduced in Congress soon.
The new public opinion findings come from a national survey of 1,000 adults who indicated they are registered to vote. It was conducted April 8-10 by The Tarrance Group, a Republican firm, and Lake Sosin Snell & Associates, a Democratic polling company. The survey's overall margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percent.
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian and gay political organization, with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that lesbian and gay Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
As I said in my State of the Union address this January, we must never, ever believe that our diversity is a weakness, for it is our greatest strength. People on every continent can look to us and see the reflection of their own great potential -- and they always will, as long as we strive to give all of our citizens an opportunity to achieve their own greatness. We're not there yet -- and that is why ENDA is so important. It is about the right of each individual in America to be judged on their merits and abilities and to be allowed to contribute to society without facing unfair discrimination on account of sexual orientation. It is about our ongoing fight against bigotry and intolerance, in our country and in our hearts.
I applaud the bi-partisan efforts of Senators Jeffords, Kennedy and Lieberman and Congressmen Shays and Frank to make the Employment Non-Discrimination Act the law. I also thank the members of the Human Rights Campaign and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, whose executive directors joined in our meeting, for their early support and hard work on behalf of this bill. It failed to win passage by only one vote in the Senate last year. My Administration worked hard for its passage then and we will continue our efforts until it becomes law.
Discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation is currently legal in 41 states. Most Americans don't know that men and women in those states may be fired from their jobs solely because of their sexual orientation, even when it is has no bearing on their job performance. Those who face this kind of job discrimination have no legal recourse, in either our state or federal courts. This is wrong.
Individuals should not be denied a job on the basis of something that has no relationship to their ability to perform their work. Sadly, as the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has documented during hearings held in the last Congress, this kind of job discrimination is not rare.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is careful to apply certain exemptions. It provides an exemption for small businesses, the Armed Forces, and religious organizations, including schools and other educational institutions that are substantially controlled or supported by religious organizations. This later provision respects the deeply held religious beliefs of many Americans. The bill specifically prohibits preferential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation, including quotas. It does not require employers to provide special benefits.
As I indicated when I originally announced my support of this legislation in October of 1995, the bill in its current form appears to answer all the legitimate objections previously raised against it, while ensuring that Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, can find and keep their jobs based on their ability and the quality of their work. It is designed to protect the rights of all Americans to participate in the job market without fear of unfair discrimination. I support it and I urge all Americans to do so. And I urge Congress to pass it expeditiously.
SALEM, Ore.--Apr. 23 REGISTER-GUARD--A gay rights bill that interrupted the Legislature last week received quick and almost unanimous support from a House committee Tuesday night after a long, sometimes tense, hearing.
The bill, which explicitly prohibits workplace discrimination against homosexuals, now goes to the House floor, where its sponsor expects it to pass.
"It clearly shows the Legislature is interested in addressing discrimination in the workplace," said a smiling Rep. Chuck Carpenter, R-Portland, who last week forced a hearing on the bill over the objections of his GOP colleagues.
Carpenter said momentum has clearly shifted in favor of the bill, House Bill 3719. "I'm confident we will have overwhelming support on the House floor," said Carpenter, the only openly gay Republican at the Legislature. With little discussion, the House Commerce Committee voted 8-1 in favor of sending the bill to the floor with a "do-pass" recommendation.
The lone vote against it was cast by Rep. Roger Beyer, R-Mollalla, who complained that he was being rushed into a decision.
"I just feel this is being rammed down our throats," Beyer said. "This bill has been in our committee for less than a week. I think this is really a farce."
The chairman of the committee, Rep. Eldon Johnson, R-Central Point, shrugged off the criticism.
"You don't have to vote yes," he replied.
Johnson kept a tight rein on what could have been an explosive night of testimony. The hearing room was packed with people who disagreed deeply on a highly emotional issue.
"You may not speak out of turn," Johnson warned the gathering. "If you do, I'm here to tell you you'll be ejected from this room and from this building."
The 2 hours of testimony proved surprisingly dry-eyed and matter of fact.
Supporters of the bill argued that it is simply wrong to fire someone on learning that he or she is homosexual. Opponents said sexual practices don't equate to other civil rights criteria currently protected under law, such as race, gender and religion.
"Age, race, religion, sexual preference have really nothing to do with job performance," said Bruce Sampson, senior vice president at Northwest Natural Gas.
Sampson said his company has a nondiscrimination policy that includes sexual orientation and hasn't had any trouble as a result of it.
But Kathy Phillips, chairwoman of the Lane County Republicans, urged the committee to kill the bill, saying it would only further the "homosexual agenda."
"It does add a new class, a class that's historically been considered immoral by most citizens," said Phillips, a member of the Oregon Citizens Alliance.
But committee members appeared to be swayed by a parade of witnesses, including past and current legislators, who said they have first-hand experience of on-the-job discrimination because of their sexual orientation. Rep. George Eighmey, D-Portland, said he lost one job in a law firm and was turned down for another because he is gay .
"I was discriminated against as a lawyer not because of my conduct, not because I couldn't perform my job," Eighmey said. "I was discriminated against simply because someone had heard I was gay ."
The bill originally had been sent to the House Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Rep. John Minnis, R-Wood Village, refused to grant it a hearing. In a rare parliamentary move, Carpenter attempted to pull the bill out of committee and force a floor vote last week. The move caused a two-day delay in House business as Republican leaders negotiated with Carpenter. The result was to send the bill to the Commerce Committee with a guarantee it would get heard.
Ryan Stephens, who listened to the testimony and watched the vote Tuesday, said he will feel safer if the bill becomes law.
"I'll be more free about who I am," said Stephens, who is gay . "I'd love to have it not matter."
April 24, 1997 -- See this special report in the Features Section.
Honolulu, Hawai`i- April 23, 1997, HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN ---- The state Senate has endorsed a measure that confers about 50 state marital rights and benefits to gay and lesbian couples as well as any other two people who cannot wed.
Sens. Marshall Ige (D, Kane`ohe), Cal Kawamoto (D, Waipahu) and Sam Slom (R, `Aina Haina) cast the dissenting votes.
A bill to let voters decide on a constitutional amendment giving lawmakers the right to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples will come before the Senate and the House before the legislature sessions ends next Tuesday.
Senate Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley said the benefits bill has been the subject of "misrepresentation and unfair criticism." He said the argument that the bill will impose costs on the private sector is unfounded.
Slom disagreed.
"This bill represents another example of putting the cart before the horse," said Slom. " . . . It has to do not with civil rights but contractual rights . . . an interference by the government into private contractual rights."
Slom chastised the Senate for passing a bill without knowing precisely how much it will cost.
HONOLULU MIDWEEK, April 23, 1997 --- In the waning days of the 1997 legislative session, Sens. Matt Matsunaga, Avery Chumbley, Mike McCartney and Wayne Metcalf are doing the toughest legislative duty anywhere in the country.
They are trying to defend the rights of a small, highly stigmatized sexual minority against a majority (70 percent of Hawai`i's electorate by one poll), many of whom are full of Old Testament rectitude. It's the same sex marriage issue again, and it's gotten very nasty.
"I grew up in a political family," says Matsunaga. "I know what my father went through, so I knew what to expect."
What can you expect if you defend gay and lesbian couples and the idea that they should enjoy certain rights?
If you're Sen. Avery Chumbley, the co-chair with Matsunaga of the Senate Judiciary Committee, someone will approach your wife to let her know you are a "fag lover."
Or they'll leave a death threat on your answering machine. "Most of them don't have the guts to say this stuff to your face," says Chumbley. "They use voice mail instead."
If you're Matsunaga, you will hear over talk radio that you are bisexual. Or receive an answering machine message expressing the wish that "your daughters will grow up to become lesbians."
Or you'll get a fax accusing you of being "scrotum-licking good to...homos."
"I've never been through anything like this before," says Chumbley, who's in his first term. "The level of hate-mongering is appalling."
"I can't pretend that when the attacks get personal they don't hurt," says Big Island's Metcalf. "Especially when you're working 14-16 hours a day and trying to be fair to everyone involved."
"Their tactics are to tear us down, to destroy us if they can," says McCartney. "The right wants to scare, threaten and mislead. "You can see it in the lobbying on this issue. The gay activists come up here appealing to the heart and compassion. The right tries to use muscle and fear."
Do they ever! During a 75-minute interview I had with McCartney recently, his office received 240 faxes and telephone calls, most of which expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.
The Senate, of course, has accepted the language of the House's amendment banning same sex marriage. They've held out, however, for a package of 52 statutory rights, including hospital visiting privileges prepaid group health care, and joint property rights.
It seems like a reasonable legislative compromise to me. But "reason" plays little part in the lives of people who live in an Old Testament world of "Thou shalt nots." They would have us believe that in traditional heterosexual marriage lies the country's salvation.
But they are trying to close the barn door long after the livestock are gone. In these United States, traditional marriage simply isn't.
Thirty percent of all children born in this country are to single women; in our major cities, the number is 50 percent. And there's not a two-parent family in sight for the majority of these kids.
The shift to the single parent and to families in which both parents work--not to homosexual coupling--is the seismic societal change of this generation. It will be out nation's undoing far sooner than extending health care benefits or hospital visiting privileges to same sex couples.
It's never politically comfortable to speak for the minority. Sens. Chumbley, Matsunaga, Metcalf and McCartney deserve plaudits rather than epithets.
Sacramento, CA April 23, 1997 --- Today, the lobbyists for LIFE: California's Lesbian/Gay and AIDS Lobby and a coalition of activists from around the state convened at the Capitol to defeat two major bills which would cause great harm to the gay and lesbian community. Each bill was met with heated debate:
SB 911, Senator Knight's (R - Palmdale) measure to prohibit California from recognizing same gender marriages from other states was defeated after the Senate Judiciary Committee added domestic partner provisions to the bill. The final vote on the bill was 2 - 2.
SB 1301, Senator Leslie's (R - Roseville) measure to close bath houses and sex clubs was also defeated by a vote of 4 - 3. The committee of nine requires five votes for a bill to pass. Eloquent testimony was given on behalf HIV/AIDS educators around the state who engage in safe sex education in bath houses, comprising the only education about HIV/AIDS transmission that many bath house clients receive.
Also in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hayden (D - Brentwood) brought up SB 841, legislation that would require the state's contractors to offer domestic partner benefits identical to spousal benefits offered. Although this measure did not get enough votes to pass the committee (3 - 4), the bill was granted reconsideration and is likely to come up for a vote in 1998.
"Today was a victory," said Ellen McCormick, Legislative Advocate for LIFE Lobby, "the radical right was so far out - they actually make the case for us." "The committee certainly understood the difference between fact and fiction," said Laurie McBride, Executive Director of LIFE, "gay and lesbian people need protection - protection from the same individuals that show up as our opponents. Faced with such open gay-bashing in a committee, it doesn't matter whether the issue is bath houses or marriage, the committee sees why we need protection."
For more information about how you can become involved in the work done by LIFE: California's Lesbian/Gay and AIDS Lobby, please call (916) 444-0424.
Reed said he is leaving in September to form a political consulting firm, to be named Century Strategies.
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson founded the Christian Coalition after his unsuccessful 1988 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Reed has been the executive director and day-to-day manager of the coalition from the outset, building a reputation as one of the conservative movement's shrewdest strategists.
While its tax-exempt status prohibits it from directly endorsing candidates, the Christian Coalition has become a major influence in GOP affairs, using a computer database of more than 1 million conservatives to influence voter turnout in targeted races.
The organization also has been a leading force in pressuring the Republican Party to maintain its opposition to abortion and to promote legislation allowing prayer in public schools.
Reed said his break with Robertson, the president of the coalition, was amicable and he will remain on the Christian Coalition board of directors and help in the search for a successor.
The group has been controversial from its founding. Democrats and liberal groups assert that its voter guides distributed in evangelical and other churches cross the line in favoring Republicans over Democrats.
WASHINGTON POST, April 19, 1997 --- Arlington has become the first Virginia county, and one of the few governments in the Washington area, to extend health benefits to unmarried domestic partners, including same-sex partners.
Effective July 1, county employees can claim medical and dental coverage for adults who are not married to them, which also could include coverage for a relative or a partner's children. The measure won unanimous support from the five County Board members, all Democrats, when they recently adopted the fiscal 1998 budget.
"We are a community of great diversity of household types," said Albert C. Eisenberg, a longtime board member. "The traditional family of a husband and wife and two kids is a distinct minority in the community."
Locally, only the cities of Baltimore and Takoma Park offer health coverage to same-sex partners. Montgomery County has a task force looking at benefits, including for domestic partners .
In the last legislative session, state Sen. Patricia S. Ticer (D-Alexandria) sponsored legislation to allow Virginia jurisdictions to extend health coverage to domestic partners , but the bill died in committee. Arlington was able to bypass the General Assembly because it has a self-insurance plan under which it assumes all costs, instead of having coverage through an insurance company.
Rhonda Buckner, president of the Arlington Gay and Lesbian Alliance, hailed the new provision. "The main issue is equality and fairness," she said. "There are a few employees who are going to benefit a lot."
Nationwide, more than 40 governments and close to 130 colleges and universities provide domestic-partner benefits, according to statistics from the Washington-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
"Ten years ago, we could probably count on one hand the jurisdictions with this kind of legislation," said Mark F. Johnson, a task f orce spokesman. "Lately, in the past five months, it's increased."
More and more private employers are extending health coverage to domestic partners, mainly because it makes good business sense, Johnson said. Walt Disney Co., International Business Machines Corp., Coors Brewing Co., Dow Chemical Co. and Apple Computer Inc. are among the major corporations with similar policies.
"For them, I don't know if they're guided by the morality," Johnson said. "They know they can attract people to their corporation. Finding and holding on to high-quality employees was a factor in the decision by Arlington board members, they said.
"It recognizes the value of every county employee, and it's a means of attracting and retaining the very best," said James B. Hunter III, a board member.
The new Arlington provision is broad. It allows an employee to claim a partner who has lived with the employee for one year, shares basic living expenses, is not married to anyone and is "involved with the employee in a mutually exclusive relationship of support and commitment," said a letter to employees.
The provision also allows employees to obtain health benefits for an adult claimed as a dependent on an income tax return, including a parent, grandparent or in-law, or an aunt, uncle or cousin related by blood.
Not all Arlington residents were pleased by the change.
"Yet another perversion of the Arlington Way," said Tom Brooke, secretary of the county Republican Committee, who complained residents weren't notified of the proposal. "This is not a health care issue by any stretch of the imagination. This is a policy change."
Brooke is also concerned about the additional cost of providing the benefits, estimated to be as much as $400,000.
County Board members said they treated the new provision the same way they had treated other revisions in retirement and other compensation benefits. They said the extra cost represents a fraction of 1 percent of the overall county budget and will be paid for by savings that have been achieved elsewhere in the health plan.
County spokeswoman Sally Michael said she did not know how many employees might enroll domestic partners in the program.
Staff writers Manuel Perez-Rivas and Robert E. Pierre contributed to this report.
SANTA ANA, CA- SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE Sunday, April 20, 1997 --- Ousted Rep. Bob Dornan told a congressional panel yesterday he was victimized in November by a campaign of massive voter fraud and his seat should be restored to him or a new election should be held.
But Loretta Sanchez, who upset the nine-term Republican, insisted Dornan had produced no credible evidence that would change the outcome of the election and said the committee is wasting its time and the taxpayers' money.
Sanchez was certified the winner of the Nov. 6 election in Orange County's 46th District by 984 votes.
But Dornan says voting by noncitizens was so pervasive that Congress should overturn the election.
A three-member task force of the Committee on House Oversight held a contentious all-day hearing here as accusations of voting irregularities were aired in a partisan atmosphere.
Vern Ehlers, R-Mich., who chairs the task force, said the panel will continue to look into the matter when it returns to Washington.
The task force ultimately will either find there are insufficient grounds to challenge the election or recommend that Congress declare Dornan the winner, or vacate the seat and order a new election.
Dornan demanded a full-blown congressional inquiry, but Sanchez contended there was no basis to pursue the matter further.
"For this committee or the House of Representatives to sanction such a broad-based investigation in search of evidence of a massive, paranoid conspiracy theory is not only beneath the dignity of this House, it is an unconstitutional invasion into the guaranteed right of every American to participate in the political process," Sanchez said.
At the heart of the controversy are charges that a private Santa Ana-based immigration group, Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, registered hundreds of voters who were not eligible because they were not in the country legally or were going through the citizenship process and not yet American citizens.
An analysis by Secretary of State Bill Jones of 1,160 Orange County voters registered by Hermandad last year concluded that 303 ineligible noncitizens voted in November in the 46th District.
Jones' Democratic predecessor, former acting Secretary of State Tony Miller, testified he believed there were probably fewer than 303 ineligible votes. He said he believes that Jones, a Republican, is misreading the law and that people who are not citizens when they register are eligible to vote if they have become citizens by Election Day.
Jones and Dornan want the entire Orange County voter roll cross-checked against Immigration and Naturalization Service files, but Miller and other Sanchez partisans say the INS files are too unreliable to be of use.
Meanwhile, Orange County District Attorney Michael Capizzi is conducting a criminal investigation into the vote-fraud charges.
Hundreds of demonstrators massed outside the Orange County Hall of Administration yesterday as the election task force hearing convened.
Most backed Hermandad Mexicana Nacional against what they regard as a partisan, immigrant-bashing witch hunt. There was also a sizable turnout from local Republican, Reform Party and anti-illegal immigration groups.
Dornan appeared to be the victor immediately after the Nov. 6 election, but as absentee ballots hand-delivered on Election Day were tallied, Sanchez took the lead and was declared the winner. A recount ordered by the Dornan campaign resulted in a net change of five votes in his favor.
But Dornan argued that if the investigation of Hermandad produced 303 illegal ballots, broadening the inquiry to numerous other organizations that conduct citizenship classes surely would uncover hundreds more improper votes.
Dornan, who initially claimed there were thousands of fraudulent votes cast on the basis of suspicious addresses at which a dozen or more voters were registered, backed off when one contested address turned out to be a Marine barracks and another a convent.
The task force was divided along partisan lines with the two Republicans -- Ehlers and Bob Ney of Ohio -- determined to pursue the controversy for as long as it takes.
The lone Democrat, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, agreed with Sanchez that such hearings should be conducted only if there were reliable evidence that the election results were in doubt. Hoyer said that condition had not been met.
Chicago,IL- April 19, 1997, CHICAGO TRIBUNE --- A South Side minister and four other men have filed the first legal challenge to Chicago's ordinance extending health and other benefits to same-sex partners of city employees.
Rev. Hiram Crawford Sr., pastor of the Israel Methodist Community Church and an outspoken opponent of the measure during City Council hearings before it was passed, filed the suit late Friday in Cook County Circuit Court.
Crawford and the other plaintiffs allege that the city exceeded its home-rule power when it adopted the ordinance March 19.
The legislature and courts "have uniformly refused to grant marriagelike legal rights to unmarried couples," Crawford and the others contended in the suit. "The City of Chicago has no authority to do what it did."
Crawford said the ordinance would result in "the destruction of the family. Two men are going to get benefits and make taxpayers pay for it?"
Nina Cadsawan, a spokeswoman for the city's legal department, declined to comment on the suit.
The ordinance was adopted after years of urging by gay and lesbian employees that Chicago follow the lead of other major cities that offer such benefits to same-sex partners of municipal employees.
But acrimony often permeated the debate in the hearings here on the measure.
Critics called the gay lifestyle "insane," "improper" and "ungodly." One referred to "the doings of the Antichrist."
Aldermen supporting the measure were threatened with political retribution.
Even Mayor Richard Daley's religious convictions were questioned by one critic of the proposal. Crawford quoted from Scripture as aldermen walked to their seats at one hearing.
"Anyone who takes the blood of holy communion and votes for this thing, I'm saying, the word of God says, `They drink damnation to their soul,' " Crawford shouted in a City Hall corridor.
In addition to questions of morality, there was also concern about the fiscal impact of the ordinance.
City officials predicted that no more than 300 of the nearly 40,000 city employees would apply for the benefits and that the cost would be no more than about $800,000 annually.
The assumption is based on the experience in such big cities as New York and Los Angeles, where only a handful of municipal employees have applied for the benefits.
Officials in both those cities, however, have voluntarily extended their programs to include heterosexual domestic partners, fearing a flood of discrimination lawsuits.
Some aldermen argued that Chicago will inevitably have to do the same thing, driving the cost of the ordinance into the annual range of $6 million.
Honolulu, Hawai`i- April 18, 1997, HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN ---Civil libertarians and others are protesting the Legislature's move toward a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-gender marriage.
About 40 people circled the state Capitol atrium yesterday with signs that said, "Compromise is not Justice"--a reference to conference committee bills agreed upon Wednesday night that would put the amendment before voters while giving gays and lesbians limited state benefits.
"When it comes to fundamental rights, you cannot compromise, and that is exactly what the House and Senate did," said Vanessa Chong, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai`i and one of the event's coordinators.
The protesters represented the Clergy Coalition, a group of more than 40 church leaders who favor equal rights, and the Coalition for Equality and Diversity, composed of some 30 civil rights organizations.
Among them was the Japanese American Citizens League, which pointed to the World War II internment camps as an example of how majority attitudes can harm an unpopular minority.
"We fear that by trying to appease a vocal and well-funded group of moral zealots, a questionable and dangerous precedent is being set that betrays Hawai`i's traditionsof acceptance, tolerance and fairness," said Steve Okino, vice president of the Honolulu chapter.
Chong said the protesters are seeking permission to conduct a "vigil of mourning" from Sunday to the end of the legislative session.
Conferees signed the bills yesterday morning after a legal check.
State Judiciary Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley (D-East Maui, North Kaua`i) said the benefits package could to before the Senate on Monday.
The proposed amendment was forwarded to Gov. Ben Cayetano for a required 10-day review.
Speaker Joe Souki (D-Wailuku) said House members will vote on both bills April 29, the last scheduled day of the session.
Souki said he is "very optomistic" the bills will pass the full Legislature.
In another development, Honolulu attorney Dan Foley said the state Supreme Court has denied his request to remove a block on same-sex marriages while the state appeals a lower court ruling on the issue.
Foley represents three same-sex couples who generated the controversy when they sought state marriage licenses.
The bill, one of the top priorities of social conservatives this session, is on its second trip through the Legislature. Previously, it cleared both houses but was vetoed by Gov. Gary Locke, who called it unnecessary, mean-spirited and divisive.
The House responded by voting to place the issue on the ballot in September, bypassing the governor. The vote was 50-48, with eight Republicans joining minority Democrats in opposition.
After days searching for the necessary 25 Senate votes, backers Wednesday agreed to allow three moderate Republicans to sponsor an amendment removing the reference to a public vote.
It was approved on an unrecorded voice vote, and the bill then passed 30-18.
Otherwise the bill would have died Friday, the deadline for passing bills through both houses.
Backers still have 11 days remaining in the session to try to find a majority for the referendum, but neither side predicted that is likely to happen.
Locke was pleased with the turn of events, said spokeswoman Marylou Flynn. "This was a divisive measure from the beginning," she said.
In the House, neither sponsors nor opponents were quite ready to declare it dead.
The prime sponsor, Rep. Bill Thompson (R-Everett), called for a House-Senate negotiating committee in hopes of restoring the public vote. But he conceded he may have to try again next year.
Rep. Ed Murray (D-Seattle), the only self-identified homosexual in the Legislature, predicted the GOP leaders won't want to spend any more time on the issue, but hesitated to say it's over.
"Every time I think something is dead around here it comes back to life. We have a lot of work to do to make sure it stays off the ballot," he said. The Senate move to keep the measure off the statewide ballot was made by moderate Republicans Jeannette Wood of Woodway, Eugene Prince of Thornton and Shirley Winsley of Fircrest. All three voted for the bill but said it would lead to trouble if put on the ballot.
"I'm not in favor of same-gender marriages, but I am also not in favor of the violence and disturbances and hate that can come from putting a bill like this on the ballot," Wood told her colleagues. She said her own phone lines were flooded with hate-filled calls just because she advocated a gas tax increase. The gay-marriage issue could inflame people far more, she said.
Honolulu, Hawai`i, April 17, 1997, HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN --- Jon Goldberg-Hiller was in Oregon in 1992 when Measure 9 appeared on the ballot.
The proposal would have declared homosexuality "wrong, unnatural and perverse," and it split the state apart.
Voters in the end rejected it, but not before emotions turned into "a great deal of violence against gays and lesbians," he recalled.
Goldberg-Hiller, a political science professor at the University of Hawai`i-Manoa, now is worried about the Aloha State.
With a constitutional amendment allowing legislators to ban same-sex marriage heading toward voter ratification next year, he is apprehensive the same tensions may emerge here.
Already he sees the seeds of ill will in taunts and signs condemning homosexuality.
"What life would be like if an amendment were on the ballot is something I think would be horrific," he said.
If the experience in other states is any indication, Goldberg-Hiller's concern may be well founded.
Political analysts here say the proposed amendment approved by a legislative conference committee yesterday has the potential of becoming a hot-button that affects not only the issue itself, but also the campaigns of all 51 state House members and 13 senators who face election next year.
Strategist Jim Loomis, who guided the 1996 campaigns of U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie and Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris, said it is a "very likely prospect" the same-sex marriage issue could dominate the elections, overriding a candidate's ability, overall record of accomplishments or stand on other topics.
"The one issue, whatever the issue is--gun control, abortion--it's all emotional, there's very little logic or rational thought that goes into it," he said.
The fear of polarizing the community was one of the reasons cited by senators last year for opposing the House's push for an amendment. With the same-gender marriage debate stretching across the country and even to Congress with the Defense of Marriage Act, analysts now feel Hawai`i could become a national battleground, with both advocates and opponents pouring money and organizational talents into the state.
"This is too important an agenda item for the religious right, and it's too important a defense for those in favor of same-sex marriage to let it go by," said UH Political Science Professor Neal Milner. "I think they'll be here."
Goldberg-Hiller thinks the Democratic majority's attempt to show it is taking action on the issue stands a good chance of backfiring.
He said mainland Republicans have been very successful in capitalizing on divisive issues and leveraging them into more legislative seats, and Hawai`i could end up with a much more conservative make-up.
Honolulu, Hawai`i , April 17, 1997, HONOLULU ADVERTISER --- Dan Foley, the lawyer representing the gay and lesbian couples who sued the state for marriage licenses, said yesterday that even if lawmakers approved the proposed constitutional amendment language, it wouldn't end his case.
The proposal doesn't ban same-sex marriage, but merely states the Legislature has the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, he said.
If the proposed amendment is ratified by the voters in the November 1998 election, the 1999 Legislature still would need to pass a law banning same-sex marriage, he said.
Foley believes that the Hawai`i Supreme Court will rule before then.
Lawmakers believe, however, that the constitutional amendment and benefits package for "reciprocal beneficiaries" would put an end to the case, since there is already a law on the books that states marriage is between a man and a woman.
Ultimately, the courts would decide.
The conferees also agreed to a weakened Senate version of HB 118, giving about 60 rights to "reciprocal beneficiaries" effective July 1, 1997. The Senate conferees demanded the July 1 date for implementation and traded off health benefits. The compromise bill gives health benefits ONLY to state employees (who declare reciprocal beneficiary status) and ONLY for two years. HB 118 requires the governor's signature.
What next? Marriage Project Hawaii will continue to pursue the court case, perhaps to completion within 12 months (and before the November 1998 vote). Same-gender marriage supporters will regroup and reorganize around fighting the Constitutional Amendment vote. For a day or two, we'll lick our wounds first!
New York, NY April 16, 1997 --- Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a lawsuit today against a Pennsylvania cemetery that refuses to erect the headstone requested by a lesbian and her now-deceased partner.
Sherry Barone and Cynthia Friedman, Philadelphia natives who moved together to Los Angeles, were in a relationship for 13 years when Friedman succumbed to cancer at age 35 in 1994. Following her 1989 diagnosis, Friedman signed extensive documents in an effort to assure that her relationship with Barone would be given legal force. Just as most people in a 13-year partnership would, Friedman wished to rely on Barone's judgements about her medical care and arragnements after her death.
In several discusssions about her headstone, RFriedman had asked that Barone include the inscription: "Beloved life partner, daughter, granddaughter, sister and aunt." Within days of Friedman's death, Barone purchased two adjoining plots in a Philadelphia-area cemetery. Friedman's grave remains unmarked because of the cemetery's refusal to act on Barone's instructions.
Before she died, Friedman explicitly rejected any relatives' authority to challenge actions by Barone on her behalf. But despite having given Barone full legal authority, the Har Jehuda Cemetery in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, insists it cannot follow Barone's instructions for the headstone. The cemetery asserts that, because Friedman's parents do not agree with her wishes concerning the headstone epitaph, a court order must resolve that Barone has authority to determine Friedman's epitaph.
"This couple did everything a lesbian or gay couple can do to make sure their relationship was given legal effect, including drawing up wills, powers of attorney, health proxies, and explicit instructions to the survivor for carrying out wishes," said David S. Buckel, Lambda's staff attorney on the case. "Those legal precautions are supposed to allow a survivor to focus on grieving and healing. Sherry Barone instead has faced the pain and stress of seeing her partner's explicit wishes disrespected and having to fight for the most basic respect for their relationship," he said.
Suing on the surviving partner's behalf, Lambda filed Barone v. Har Jehuda Cemetery in federal court in Philadelphia. The case asserts there is no legal basis for any party to contravene Barone's authority to carry out Friendman's wishes. Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts, the cemetery breached its contract and caused emotional distress by refusing to honor those wishes.
Both women were raised in Jewish families and have relatives buried in the defendant cemetery. As a result of the cemetery's refusal to respect its contract with Barone, the traditional "unveiling" of the headstone occured without a grave marker. The unveiling is an important Jewish tradition that officially marks the end of the grieving period one year after a loved one's death.
"I didn't complete the grieving process that a person should have after losing a loved one, and I will never recover from the emotional and spiritual agony of the unveiling at Cynthia's unmarked grave," said Barone, who is 36. "My life cannot go on fully until I know that Cynthia's spirit is at rest, her wishes having been carried out," Barone said.
Attempts at mediation failed, despite statements of support Barone gathered from joint friends and some of Friedman[s relatives. The cemetery insisted on having the consent of Friendman's parents to a headstone inscription or a court order requiring it to follow Barone's instructions.
"It would be unimaginable for a cemetery to question a husband's or wife's authority to act after a spouse's death. This couple did everything possible to assure that they would be treated appropriately," said Lambda Legal Director Beatrice Dohrn. "This case illustrates that even when lesbian and gay couples have lawyers draft all the recommended documents, they are vulnerable to homophobia of those who will not respect our families," she said.
Friedman and Barone met and fell in love when they were teenagers in Philadelphia. In their early twenties, they committed themselves to each other for life, later moving to the Los Angeles area. Barone remained dedicated to Friedman through years of illness, caring for her and even sleeping on the floor of her room when she had to be hospitalized.
"In response to a grieving partner's efforts to honor the wishes of her loved one, we have had to go to court to get justice for Sherry and Cynthia," said Abbe F. Fletman of Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers in Philadelphia, Lambda's cooperating attorney on the case. "We hope this will be a lesson for everyone baout the need lesbian and gay couples have for legal protections."
The headstone requested by Barone includes the Star of David and Friedman's Hebrew name, Sheva, and states:
LOS ANGELES, APRIL 16, 1997 --- The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) announced today that exclusive celebrity memorabilia from the historic Ellen "coming out" episode will be featured at GLAAD's official "Come Out With Ellen" parties nationwide. GLAAD "Come Out With Ellen" fundraising events will take place in Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, San Diego and Kansas City on April 30th at 7:00 PM for the ABC telecast of Ellen (ABC-TV, 9:00 PM). The media watchdog organization has also organized more than 1,500 GLAAD "Come Out With Ellen" home viewing parties in all 50 states and 5 countries.
Autographed "coming out" episode scripts, used by the cast of Ellen, and signed cast photos, posters, sweatshirts and tee shirts will be raffled at "Come Out With Ellen" fundraising events. Also up for grabs are a pair of American Airline tickets good for travel anywhere in the continental US, Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean. GLAAD's "Come Out With Ellen" parties-sponsored by The Advocate and Absolut-celebrate a turning point in American television. Ellen is the nation's first television program to feature a lesbian lead character. Ellen DeGeneres, the show's star, announced she is a lesbian in the April 14, 1997 issue of Time magazine.
The GLAAD "Come Out With Ellen" event in Los Angeles takes place at Love Lounge located at 657 North Robertson Blvd. in West Hollywood. Cast members including Patrick Bristow and David Higgins will join GLAAD Entertainment Media Director Chastity Bono at the LA event. Advance tickets are available by calling (213) 658-6775.
The New York event will be held at Irving Plaza, located at Irving Place and East 15th Street. Call (212) 807-1700 for tickets. In Washington DC, the event takes place at Trumpets Drama Lounge at 1603 17th Street NW. Tickets can be purchased by calling (202) 986-1360. The San Francisco event is at Club Touche, located at 300 De Haro Street, Potrero Hill. Call (415) 861-2244 for tickets. The "Come Out With Ellen" party in Kansas City takes place at Cabaret at 5024 Main, and in San Diego at the Flame at 3780 Park Boulevard. Call GLAAD at 1-(800) GAY-MEDIA for ticket prices or visit GLAAD Online at www.glaad.org for more information about GLAAD "Come Out With Ellen" parties nationwide.
GLAAD's "Come Out With Ellen" campaign is the culmination of eight months of successful lobbying to "Let Ellen Out." Last month, GLAAD launched the official "Come Out With Ellen" World Wide Web site (www.glaad.org) which provides information on throwing Ellen house parties, online Ellen resources and critical coming out information.
Contact: Alan Klein (212)807-1700, Email: klein@glaad.org
Of great concern is a North Dakota bill recently signed into law making it the first state to legalize the confinement of people suspected of having HIV. According to the law, emergency personnel, including police officers, firefighters, patients, health care workers and others may secure a court order confining individuals to whose blood they have been "significantly" exposed. Persons may be confined for up to five days and no criminal charges need be filed to be imprisoned.
"This is one of the most chilling and dangerous laws enacted this year," said Kerry Lobel, NGLTF executive director. "It flies in the face of accepted medical and public health policy regarding HIV. This law will do more harm than good for the people of North Dakota."
Critics of the new law say the fact that HIV tests of others does not determine one's own HIV status seems to have been lost on North Dakota law makers and the governor. The law goes into effect July 1. For more information, contact Keith Elston of the ACLU of the Dakotas at 701-255-4727.
Hate crimes legislation continues to move forward in a few states, buoying hopes that the number of states with hate crime laws inclusive of gays and lesbians will increase by year's end.
"Hate crime laws are of great importance in deterring violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people," stated Lobel. Four of the states with such bills currently have hate crime laws excluding crimes based on sexual orientation. Lobel underscored the importance of having sexual orientation included in these laws, "hate crime laws excluding sexual orientation send a dangerous message that while hate crimes are wrong, anti-gay bashing is acceptable."
A complete copy of the legislative update and accompanying chart is available by calling NGLTF at 202/332-6483 x3214. This and previous editions of the update are available for downloading at http://www.ngltf.org.
Full Report available by clicking here or go to Feature's section "Policy."
The so-called Deviate Sexual Conduct Law makes nay form of private sexual conduct by lesbian or gay adult couples a felony and requires that violators face extraordinary punishment, with a maximum of 10 years in prison and up to $50,000 in fines.
Lead attorney Rosemary Daszkiewicz, cooperating attorney for the Northwest Women's Law Center argued the case in Gryczan v. State of Montana on behalf of the six gay and lesbian Montana citizens who filed suit.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union authored a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the plaintiffs which was joined by the Montana Human Rights Network, PRIDE!, the Women's Law Section of the State Bar of Montana, the Montana Women's Lobby, and Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
Lead plaintiff Linda Gryczan said in a statement, "Our legislators have used this law as an excuse to discriminate against us and to deny us protection from the hate crimes that we face across our state. Most recently, our legislators have used this law to deny us the right to marry. With this lawsuit, we are seeking the same rights of privacy, dignity, and equal protection that are supposed to be guaranteed to everyone under the Montana Constitution."
The Montana Supreme Court will review a decision issued by Montana State District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock on February 16, 1996, which held that the law is a violation of the Montana constitutional right to privacy. Judge Sherlock concluded that consensual sex is a very private matter and the state has no reason, compelling or otherwise, to criminalize lesbian and gay sex.
After two years of litigation and unsuccessful efforts by the state to have the case dismissed for lack of standing, the court granted the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement and ruled in their favor. The State has appealed the lower court's ruling.
PHOENIX Arizona Daily Star, April 13, 1997 --- Gov. Fife Symington intends to veto a ``hate crimes'' bill that just passed the House of Representatives.
Symington said yesterday that he would not accept the language approved Thursday night by nearly a 2-1 margin. He said the only acceptable form is a version that House members specifically rejected as being largely meaningless and unenforceable.
The governor's decision means lawmakers who support the current language must either be willing to override a veto if Symington fulfills his threat or accept the watered-down version.
As the legislation (SB 1047) now stands, a judge would be able to impose a longer jail term on someone convicted of a felony if the crime was committed because of the victim's race, religion, sex or sexual preference.
Rep. Robin Shaw, R-Scottsdale, who is sponsoring the legislation, said the enhanced penalty is necessary to deter hate crimes.
Symington has never been a fan of hate-crimes legislation. He vetoed a similar measure last session, calling it unnecessary and saying judges already can ``enhance punishment for bigoted criminals.''
With the current bill, Shaw asked House colleagues at the last minute to scrap the original language and substitute a Symington-crafted version. That wording allowed stiffer punishments if the crime was committed because the victim was the member of some identifiable group.
Lawmakers on both sides of the issue found the governor's version unacceptable.
Rep. Susan Gerard, R-Phoenix, said the wording was too vague to pass constitutional muster. Shaw conceded yesterday that both Attorney General Grant Woods and Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley have expressed similar reservations.
Others who oppose any form of hate-crimes legislation said they feared the wording was too broad. One lawmaker questioned whether someone who commits robbery could face a longer prison term under hate-crimes legislation because the victim was ``a member of a group of people who had money.''
The governor defended his proposal.
``We continue to have the problem of the enumerated classes in the bill, which leads to a sort of exclusivity,'' he said.
``My language is more inclusive. And if we're going to go down this road, we ought to be all-inclusive.''
Symington's version was defeated 29-18. The House then approved the original wording 36-20.
The bill now goes to the Senate. Sen. Randall Gnant, R-Scottsdale, said he hasn't decided whether to agree to the stronger version or demand a conference committee to try to persuade the House to back off. Personally, Gnant said, he likes the bill the way it is, but the threat of a veto may force a compromise. Shaw said, though, that the latter course may be politically impossible.
``I would have a very difficult time, given the circumstances surrounding Thursday night and the overwhelming opposition to it, to bring it back and sell it to the House,'' she said.
Symington said he stands ready to honor his commitment to sign a hate-crimes bill - as long as it's not the one the House passed. ``We're trying to reach a compromise,'' he said. ``I hope we can work it out.''
The legislation has provoked controversy at every stage. Shaw had to get a petition of three-fifths of the House to even get the bill to the floor after Speaker Don Aldridge, R-Lake Havasu City, refused to schedule a vote.
Aldridge, who opposes the current language, was quoted by a TV reporter as saying the bill was being pushed by ``a few Jews'' in the Legislature. He later denied using that language but acknowledged that he said the bill was being pushed by the Jewish community.
The speaker voted for the governor's version.
Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly struck down on Friday, April 11, an appropriations bill passed last year which penalized the state's colleges and universities for providing health benefits to employees involved in domestic partnerships.
The bill reduced a college's state appropriation by the same amount that college spent to extend those health benefits.
Kelly said the bill violated the state constitution by interfering with a college's autonomy as provided in the constitution.
The bill had been originally co-sponsored by Sen. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, who made no bones that the bill was targeted at preventing homosexual couples from receiving the benefits. When the bill was passed last year, he hailed it as a victory for "family values."
The University of Michigan and Wayne State University are the only state universities to extend the benefits to same-sex couples. However, many other universities have been studying the issue.
The bill was passed shortly before the Legislature passed the bills prohibiting same-sex marriage in the state. Both bills were passed with little debate.
HONOLULU, HI - April 12, 1997 (AP) --- House and Senate conferees on the same-sex marriage bills broke off talks at 2 a.m. Saturday after getting hung up on giving same-sex and other nontraditional couples access to employer-paid family health insurance coverage.
House Speaker Joseph Souki and Senate President Norman Mizuguchi both said they'll consder extending their earlier deadline for a settlement, if it appears further talks would result in an agreement.
Technically, lawmakers have until next Friday to provide Gov. Ben Cayetano, the required 10-day's notice of the final language of a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
Behind-closed-doors talks between the two sides moved to Souki's office shortly after 11 p.m. and the midnight deadline that had been set came and went with no indication from either side fon what was happening.
Then at 2 a.m., House conferee chairman Terrance Tom emerged, declaring: "It's over."
"We were willing to give the House their entire language on the constitutional amendment, but we felt the rights and benefits package was not fair, we felt the negotiations were not fair," said Sen. Matt Matsunaga, co-chair of the Senate conferees.
The Senate conferees are holding the agreed upon constitutional amendment bill hostage for the rights and benefits package for "reciprocal beneficiaries," which would include gay and lesbian couples, Tom said.
Souki said the House's experts have determined that the added cost just to the state and counties for expanding health benefits for employees taking advantage of a reciprocal beneficiary arrangement would be at least $13 million a year. "It could be a lot more," he said.
Considering the state's financial situation, it can't afford that amount, Souki said.
"We're willing to give benefits," Tom said. "But we have to do it in a responsible manner."
Souki said the House felt there needs to be a study on the financial impact before lawmakers approve the health benefits as part of the rights and benefits package while the Senate wanted to grant the benefits first and then do the study.
"Once you give, it's hard to take back," Souki said.
Souki said the House had agreed to 90 percent of the "whole bundle of rights" the Senate proposed giving same-sex couples.
"We're going to have more rights in the state of Hawai`i for the reciprocal beneficiaries, including of course the gays, than any other state in the union and probably the world," Souki said.
Matsunaga said the House's figures on the cost of extending health benefits are a great exaggeration based on unrealistic assumptions on how many state workers would take advantage of a reciprocal benficiary arrangement.
The Senate's look at the response to such benefits in Los Angeles showed that only 1.5 percent of 34,000 employees tood advantage of the program, compared to the 10 percent estimate for Hawai`i made by the House, Matsunaga said.
"We felt that the health insurance is a cornerstone of the rights and benefits package," Matsunaga said.
Matsunaga also said the two sides have yet to agree on the effective date of a rights and benefits package, with the Senate wanting it to take effect this year and the House in 1999, well after voters have considered the constitutional amendment.
That would make moot a 1993 state Supreme Court decision that Hawai`i had to allow same-sex marriages unless it could show a compelling reason not to. Circuit Judge Kevin Chang ruled in December the state had vailed to show that compelling reason at a September trial. The case is on appeal back to the Supreme Court.
Chicago Defender Newspaper, 12-Apr-97 --- Seeking fairness for all city workers, Ald. Virgil Jones (15th) Thursday began lobbying for passage of a bill that would allow heterosexual city couples who live together to obtain health benefits just as their same-sex peers.
Jones said his bill, when passed, would amend the same sex Domestic Partner Act that allows gay and lesbian city worker[s] to have city health insurance.
Ald. Jones said many women "take care of a man's children and that's an honorable profession being a homemaker. That's a job in itself and if you have that kind of job, don't you think they should receive some kind of benefits?"
Jones said all children "are born of a legitimate, not illegitimate act" and denied he and the other aldermen are promoting immorality by pushing the legislation.
"We have to wait and see the financial impact and whether there's any litigation that's filed" from the passage of a similar bill for gay and lesbian city workers who are living together, Finance Chairman Alds. Edward M. Burke (14th) said.
"When African Americans did not choose to marry and lived common-law, we still acquired (joint) bank accounts and charge cards, but they still did not allow us to get insurance with that city employee," Ald. Carrie Austin (34th) said.
"If you're going to allow city health benefits for same-sex partners, then it's only fair to allow it for unmarried heterosexual couples."
Austin said when she got remarried she "went through heck and high water" with the administration to get her husband on her insurance, including a brief interruption of coverage.
"Why should I have to go through all that when they (same-sex partners) only have to sign an affidavit?" Austin queried.
"I think we should have universal healthcare," Ald. Walter Burnett Jr. (27th) said, adding that in the interim, allowing city health benefits should be afforded unmarried heterosexual couples.
He denied the aldermen would be sending the wrong message to children if this bill is approved. Burnett said the issue is a "double-edged sword. "It's prevalent in the African American community ... a lot of people stay together, take care of each other, but don't get married," Burnett stated. "A lot of women in our community have children from other relationships and fathers aren't around. They're dead, in jail."
PHOENIX, Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, AZ, April 11, 1997 --- A divided and emotionally drained House passed a bill last night that will allow judges to impose harsher sentences on criminals who commit so-called hate crimes.
The 36-20 vote capped a tortuous daylong trek through a legislative maze that left supporters angry and disappointed, mostly with House Speaker Don Aldridge, who had tried to prevent the bill from coming to a vote.
``These are not happy times,'' said House Minority Leader Art Hamilton, D-Phoenix. ``There are relationships that have been wounded.'' Last night's victory could be short-lived. Although the bill is expected to pass the Senate, what Gov. Fife Symington will do if it reaches his desk is unclear. Symington vetoed a hate-crimes bill last year and said yesterday he has concerns with legislation that ``has been a politically correct thing to do.''
The governor offered what he and other Republican leaders called a compromise late yesterday, but his proposal was shot down in the House, where the original bill held on to bipartisan support.
As it was approved last night, Senate Bill 1047 will allow a judge to impose a harsher penalty in a felony case if the victim was targeted because of race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation or national origin or ancestry.
The bill includes a clause barring someone from using the law to file a civil discrimination suit linked to sexual orientation, a provision conservative lawmakers had demanded.
Rep. Robin Shaw, R-Phoenix, sponsored the bill and was able to push it through several committees earlier in the session with unanimous votes. Each time she did so, however, Aldridge, R-Lake Havasu City, blocked action on the floor.
Last week, she and 36 other House members filed a petition to force a vote by the end of yesterday. Aldridge stalled on the motion and promised to try to kill the bill.
He ignited a firestorm late Tuesday when, according to a Phoenix television reporter, he characterized the bill as legislation sought by Jewish members of the House. He insisted he did not make disparaging remarks about Jews, but the reported comment upset many House members.
After a series of closed-door meetings that included representatives of the Governor's Office, Shaw agreed to offer the compromise language, which removed the specific groups that would be covered and used only the words ``identified group'' and ``identity within a group.''
As debate progressed on the floor, support for the compromise crumbled and it was killed by an unusual combination of the original bill's supporters - mostly Democrats and moderate Republicans - and its staunchest foes. Shaw broke down in tears, but members rallied around her and argued fervently in favor of the original hate-crimes bill.
``In passing this bill we are saying will not tolerate intimidation of people due to the color of their skin, their cultural background, their religion or who they sleep with,'' said Rep. Richard Kyle, R-Phoenix. ``I support sending a message through this piece of legislation that hate will not be tolerated in the state of Arizona,'' said Rep. Roberta Voss, R-Glendale.
Critics said the bill wrongly creates a new class of people and takes equality out of the justice system.
``There is hatred all over this country and all over this world,'' said Rep. Dan Schottel, R-Tucson. ``But under our system of justice, we are all treated equally. We're protecting classes or groups of people. Everyone should be equal.''
``You can't legislate against hatred,'' said Rep. Jake Flake, R-Snowflake.
``The only thing that will overcome hatred is kindness, respect and, often, time.''
But Shaw said the bill did not try to legislate against hate: ``The bill does not make hate a crime. All this bill does is give judges some discretion. It is time we recognize that hatred will not be tolerated.''
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is considering a legal challenge, said the law serves no public health purpose, and is a serious violation of due process and the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"This law is way over the top," said Keith D. Elston, executive director of the ACLU of the Dakotas. "It completely violates people's most basic rights, while addressing none of the health concerns raised."
Under the measure, a person who believes that another individual has "significantly" exposed them to blood may secure a state court order confining that individual for up to five days, during which time a judge can rule on whether to order a HIV test.
The legislation specifies a "person" as a police officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, health care worker or a patient -- in other words, practically anyone could be detained. The law also allows a person to be imprisoned even though no criminal charges have been filed.
"This measure gives courts the unprecedented power to jail doctors, patients and ordinary citizens for something as unsubstantiated as a hunch," said Matt Coles, director of the ACLU's National AIDS Project.
"Even people accused of the most heinous crimes are jailed only after some official has determined there is probable cause," Coles said. "Then they are entitled to a fair hearing within a couple of days. Surely, the possibility that someone has HIV is not a reason to disregard basic due process."
The law also provides no guidance to courts on how the results of the forced HIV test will be kept confidential, raising important questions about individual privacy, according to the ACLU.
The controversy stemmed from an incident in Minot, North Dakota where a police officer was exposed to blood during an emergency call. The officer later noticed a scratch on his forearm and requested the subject to be tested for HIV. The subject tested positive, but the officer has not.
"The only way that officers and others can know if they haven't been infected is to get tested themselves," Coles said. "While it may satisfy our curiosity to know the other person's HIV status, those results don't tell us anything about our own health."
By SCOTT MacKAY, Journal-Bulletin State House Bureau
PROVIDENCE, RI, Providence Journal Bulletin, April 11, 1997 --- Handling two hot-button issues, the House Judiciary Committee yesterday easily killed a proposed ban on gay marriages in Rhode Island, then voted overwhelmingly to approve legislation that would make it a felony for a doctor to perform a so-called "partial-birth" abortion performed late in a pregnancy.
The GAY MARRIAGE legislation proposed by Rep. Susan Iannitelli, R-Smithfield, sought to ban same-sex marriages in Rhode Island and give the state the right not to recognize such marriages deemed legal by another state.
Iannitelli said the legislation was needed to preserve "thousands of years of cultural tradition of a marriage being between one man and one woman."
But opponents, such as Rep. Timothy Williamson, D-West Warwick, argued that because no gay couples were seeking state sanction of their relationships, there is no need for legislation in an area that is being fought out in courts.
Defeat of the legislation by an 11-to-5 vote was applauded by the Rhode Island Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights. "The House Judiciary Committee said resoundingly that it will not use gay and lesbian people as political pawns," said Kate Montiero, alliance spokeswoman.
The decision in the anti-affirmative action initiative by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, overturns an injunction issued by a federal district court judge which has banned implementation of the ballot measure since its approval in November.
Proposition 209 eliminates affirmative action programs, bars "preferential treatment," and discrimination in public hiring, contracting and education.
According to the opinion of one judge speaking about the decision of the federal district judge who issued the injuction, "[A] system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of a pen what 4,736,180 state residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy."
"The decision yesterday by the federal appeals court is disappointing in many respects, said Kerry Lobel, Executive Director of NGLTF. "First, it allows for the implementation of a measure that is clearly meant to turn back the clock on the civil rights of women and people of color. Second, it ignores the reality that ongoing discrimination continues to pose special problems or obstacles to the hiring, promotion and contracting opportunities of women and people of color. Even a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has embraced race-conscious remedies in the recent Adarand case."
"Also disturbing, " according to Lobel, "is that the decision includes gratuitous language attacking affirmative action programs. At least one of the judges has forgotten that the judiciary exists precisely as a check against the will of the majority, if the majority threatens constitutional rights and privileges, " she added. "The gay , lesbian, bisexual and trangender community is fully aware of these attacks since they were also used against the U.S. Supreme Court when it threw out Colorado's anti-gay ballot measure," Lobel went on.
Helen Gonzales, NGLTF Public Policy Director noted that "this decision is of importance to the gay community because affirmative action policies affect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people of color. " "Also, so long as there are forces at work in this country trying to dismantle policies geared toward remedying continued discrimination against women and people of color, we cannot expect recognition of the human dignity and civil rights of gays," Gonzales concluded.
WASHINGTON, DC - 9 April 1997 --- Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund candidate Richard Gordon has won the April 8 special election for the San Mateo (CA) Board of Supervisors. - Gordon racked up an overwhelming 41% of the vote in the seven-way nonpartisan race. His closest competitor came in second with 32%. "Richard's decisive victory is a real tribute to the fairmindedness of San Mateo's voters," says Victory Fund Political Director Kathleen DeBold. "They have sent a clear message to the rest of America on the value of judging candidates on their qualifications rather than their sexual orientation."
Uniquely qualified for this office, Richard Gordon has devoted his career to making San Mateo County a better place for all its residents. A two-term member of the San Mateo Board of Education, Richard Gordon is executive director of Youth and Family Assistance (YFA), a non- profit agency that provides a wide range of services to homeless youth. -Among his numerous civic activities, he is President-elect of the Redwood City Chamber of Commerce, co-chair of the San Mateo County Task Force on Violent Crime Against Women and a member of the San Mateo County Criminal Justice Council.
The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund is the only national organization that helps qualified openly gay and lesbian candidates overcome the obstacles which have historically denied them fair and equal political opportunities.
[For photographs or more information, please contact Kathleen DeBold at (202) 842-8679 or victoryf@aol.com.]
SACRAMENTO, CA -SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, Thursday, April 10, 1997 -- A bill aimed at cracking down on gay-bashing on California's public school campuses and colleges stalled one vote short of passage in an Assembly committee late yesterday.
The measure by Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would amend the state Education Code to prohibit discrimination against students and employees based on their sexual orientation.
But the Assembly Education Committee voted 10-9 in favor of passage -- just short of a majority on the 21-member panel.
Democrats Jack Scott of Pasadena and Scott Wildman of Los Angeles still had not cast votes as the committee met into the night. (Assemblymember Jack Scott cast a late yes vote, passing the bill out of committee!}
Earlier in the day, however, Kuehl said she was optimistic the committee would pass the bill.
"Our experience is that there is enormous reaction, discrimination and violence against us, against children who either say they are gay or lesbian or are even perceived to maybe be gay or lesbian," said Kuehl, one of two openly gay members of the Assembly.
Kuehl saw a nearly identical measure die last year in an Education Committee that was then controlled by Republicans.
Stephanie Reed, a Petaluma mother whose gay son, Robin, jumped to his death from the Golden Gate Bridge two years ago, recounted how schoolyard harassment caused him to quietly suffer and withdraw before his death.
"Robin didn't commit suicide because he was gay," she told the panel. "He committed suicide because he was in pain."
Manuel Ruiz, a 17-year-old El Monte high school student who is gay, said he has been harassed and, two years ago, beaten because of his sexual orientation.
The taunting, he said, started in elementary school.
"I am not someone's sex joke," Manuel said. "I am a human being." Massachusetts has a similar law, and several other states are considering anti-discrimination bills, said Jennifer Pizer, an attorney with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Most of the legislation was introduced after a Wisconsin school district agreed last fall to pay $1 million to a former gay high school student who sued after school administrators failed to protect him from discrimination.
But opponents, led mostly by religious groups and conservative lawmakers, maintained that Kuehl's AB 101 seeks to promote the gay lifestyle, "chills" free speech and may even require costly changes in curriculum and textbooks.
"This is a cunning political attack that uses children as pawns," said a man who identified himself only as Mark, a former homosexual from Sacramento.
School districts already are barred from discriminating based on race, religion, age and gender under the California Education Code. It bans textbooks and other instructional materials that may reflect adversely against specified groups.
Assemblyman Steve Baldwin, R-El Cajon, called a news conference before the hearing with three "former homosexuals and lesbians" to suggest the law was being altered to accommodate a changeable lifestyle choice.
"There are all kinds of implications in this bill," said Baldwin, former Education Committee chairman. "The bottom line is that it simply is improper policy to legislate based upon the conduct and behavior of someone."
Republicans on the committee, who cast all but one of the nine votes against the measure, questioned whether the measure would go further than Kuehl's simple stated goal of preventing discrimination.
"How long do you think you can push the majority without occasioning a massive boycott of the public schools?" said Assemblyman George House, R-Hughson. "The public schools should not be used as change agents to make our children believe what they are not taught is right." Kuehl's AB 101 narrowly passed the Assembly Higher Education Committee.
The jury deliberated for two hours after a six-day trial before convicting Robert Durfee of strangling Bob Gross, then setting fire to Gross' apartment to destroy evidence. Durfee was later arrested by police while driving Gross' car.
Gross was an award winning sports writer with the Lansing State Journal and a closeted gay man. He was known for making "pick-up" encounters in the Lansing area.
Police and prosecutors initially ignored the gay connection to the crime, calling it a robbery gone awry instead. Under those circumstances, a first degree murder conviction, which carries a mandatory life sentence, was unlikely.
But under sustained pressure by the lesbigay activist group the Triangle Foundation, the prosecutor handling the case announced she would use the fact Gross was gay to show Durfee was motivated by his hatred of homosexuals to commit murder.
The jury's decision indicates the prosecution was successful, and another jury agrees that murder is murder, that people who hate and act on their hatred will suffer the consequences of their actions.
LOS ANGELES, APRIL 7, 1997 ---- Ellen DeGeneres, star of ABC-TV's Ellen, "came out of the closet" today in the April 14th issue of Time magazine. Ellen Morgan, the title character on the television program that bears her name, will also announce she is a lesbian on the show's April 30th episode. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) congratulates Ms. DeGeneres and pledges continued support for her and her television show.
According to GLAAD, DeGeneres is Hollywood's first major television superstar to come out as gay, lesbian or bisexual. DeGeneres follows other television celebrities that paved the way for today's announcement, including Party of Five's Mitchell Anderson, Frasier's Dan Butler, The Larry Sanders Show's Scott Thompson and Married...With Children's Amanda Bearse. DeGeneres joins the out-and-proud ranks of pop and sports superstars like k.d. lang, Melissa Etheridge, Elton John, Martina Navratilova, Greg Louganis and RuPaul.
"GLAAD applauds Ellen DeGeneres' courageous decision to come out," said Chastity Bono, GLAAD's entertainment media director. "Ellen's deeply personal decision will enable her to move forward and break new ground both personally and professionally."
In Time, DeGeneres described her coming out as "the most freeing experience," and Chastity Bono expects Ellen's announcement will help lesbian and gay Americans, young and old, to shut their closet doors behind them. "Ellen's coming out serves as a highly visible example for lesbians and gay men who are struggling in the closet and will open up closet doors for them," added Ms. Bono.
Last week GLAAD launched the official "Come Out With Ellen" World Wide Web site (located at www.glaad.org) and announced its "Come Out With Ellen" viewing parties, which will take place on April 30th in cities nationwide. A GLAAD "Come Out With Ellen" kit will be provided to fans interested in throwing "Come Out With Ellen" house parties by calling GLAAD at (800) GAY-MEDIA.
GLAAD is the nation's lesbian and gay news bureau and the only national lesbian and gay multimedia watchdog organization. GLAAD promotes fair, accurate and inclusive representation as a means of challenging discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity.
WASHINGTON, D.C. April 7, 1997 -- The Human Rights Campaign commended the selection today of Sandra L. Thurman as the new White House "AIDS czar."
"Sandra Thurman is a solid choice to take the Office of National AIDS Policy to the next level," said Elizabeth Birch, HRC's executive director. "She brings the right mix of leadership, political skills and commitment to the fight against HIV and AIDS."
Winnie Stachelberg, HRC's legislative director, said Thurman has the experience to design and execute the administration's programs in the changing struggle to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
"Thurman was intricately involved in the creation and enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act in 1990 and its reauthorization in 1995," said Stachelberg, who is a member of the executive committee of the umbrella group National Organizations Responding to AIDS. "She knows AIDS policy and politics from the inside--a critical combination of skills for this job."
Thurman becomes the third person to hold the position known informally as the national AIDS czar. She replaces Patsy Fleming, who stepped down after President Clinton's re-election.
Thurman, a native of Atlanta, is past executive director of AID Atlanta, the Southeast's first and largest AIDS service provider. Under her stewardship, AID Atlanta tripled in size, becoming a multimillion-dollar direct service agency with 90 staffers and more than 1,000 volunteers, serving thousands of individuals and families with HIV and AIDS.
Most recently, Thurman was a White House appointee to the U.S. Information Agency, responsible for cultural and professional exchange programs.
Thurman has a history of political and public service. In 1996, she held a variety of positions with the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.
From 1993 to 1996, Thurman was director of advocacy programs at the Task Force for Child Survival and Development in Atlanta. The task force is sponsored by such respected organizations as UNICEF, the World Health Organization and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Thurman's AIDS-related activities include serving on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS; on the Georgia State AIDS Task Force; the Fulton County HIV Planning Council; and the executive committee of Cities Advocating Emergency AIDS Relief. In addition, she has served on the board of directors of the National Episcopal AIDS Coalition, Sisterlove Inc. and the Atlanta AIDS Interfaith Network. In 1995, Thurman testified before Congress with Elizabeth Taylor on federal AIDS programs and priorities.
Before joining AID Atlanta in 1988, Thurman was public affairs director for AmeriPlan Health Services, Georgia's largest health maintenance organization, and as a job placement specialist working with ex-offenders at the Georgia Department of Labor, Correctional Services Division. She holds a bachelor's degree in human resources administration and management from Mercer University in Georgia.
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian and gay political organization, with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that lesbian and gay Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
LOS ANGELES TIMES, April 4, 1997 --- State legislators are attempting to narrow the scope of Megan's Law, the sex offender registration statute that inadvertently forced some elderly gay men to register as sex criminals along with child molesters and rapists.
Assemblywoman Barbara Alby (R-Fair Oaks), who authored Megan's Law in California, has submitted a bill amending technical problems with the measure. After meetings between Department of Justice officials and civil libertarians, Alby has agreed to add to Megan's Law a mechanism to remove the names of improperly registered sex offenders from the state's databases.
A story in The Times earlier this year showed how youthful indiscretions between consenting adults have come back to haunt otherwise law-abiding men in the current crackdown against child abuse.
For 50 years, California has required people convicted of crimes deemed sex offenses to register with their local police. But these laws were rarely used until recently, when California became one of dozens of states to enact a version of Megan's Law.
Named after a New Jersey girl allegedly slain by a paroled molester, Megan's Law calls for a database of the names, photographs and ZIP codes of California's 57,000 registered sex offenders to be available to the public by July 1.
But among those sex offenders are untold numbers of elderly gay men who were arrested in the 1940s and 1950s for crimes no longer considered sex offenses. In the rush by authorities to update their files over the past year, these men and others convicted long ago of consensual sex acts with adults have been forced to register as sex offenders, casting a Kafkaesque shadow over their golden years.
The specifics of Alby's bill are still being ironed out, but all sides agree that something must be done.
"We've had meetings with the Department of Justice and they have expressed interest in trying to remedy the situation," ACLU lobbyist Francisco Labaco said. "They do not want the names of these people on the list any more than the ACLU does."
"This may be the first time the ACLU is backing a Barbara Alby sex offender bill," said Alby aide George Passantino.
One name on the list was that of a 90-year-old Leisure World resident, who in 1944 pleaded guilty to lewd conduct after police caught him putting his hand on another man's knee inside a parked car in West Hollywood.
Fifty years later, a letter arrived at his home stamped "SEX CRIME" in red ink. His wife of 50 years received it. Only with the help of a lawyer did the man get his name removed.
The problem, authorities said, is that old criminal records do not specify whether the crime was a consensual act between adults or a violent crime. The Department of Justice even tried to weed out consensual offenders from its records in 1995, but if there was nothing on records to assure agents that the act was now legal, offenders were left on.
One proposal is for judges to be empowered to remove people from the list if they were found to have been convicted of acts that are no longer registerable offenses, said Rob Stutzman, a spokesman for Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren. Registered offenders would make their case to the judge in a private hearing.
"Our point of view is that if they're not dangerous . . . we're not interested in them registering on the database and taking up space," Stutzman said.
That heartens Harold, a 63-year-old Los Angeles resident, Korean War veteran and former registered sex offender.
In 1956, Harold was caught having oral sex with another sailor in a parked car in La Jolla. Nearly 40 years later, he was ordered to register as a sex offender, and his name was stricken from the list only after a 14-month battle involving a bevy of free attorneys and help from the ACLU.
"There's such a waste of manpower," Harold said. "All these detectives are sitting around police stations registering people who shouldn't be registered instead of breaking up gangs or catching murderers."
SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, April 3, 1997 --- A newly elected Democrat, who as a mother with two boys once was turned away by landlords after she had lost her home, yesterday cast the deciding vote for a bill outlawing job discrimination against gays.
The bill was one of three gay-rights bills that passed key committee votes yesterday.
But gay-rights advocates had feared that Assemblywoman Sally Havice would oppose rather than support the job- and housing-discrimination legislation that mirrors the unsuccessful 1991 "Gay Rights Bill."
Just last month the Latina lawmaker from Bellflower voted against a bill to ban discr