![[Contents]](images/cntsicon.gif)
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 31, 1997, HONOLULU ADVERTISER --- Despite the pleas of an Office of Hawai`ian Affairs trustee, the state House Judiciary Committee yesterday approved a bill authorizing a constitutional convention in 1998.
"I'm putting this on the fast track because the people want it and we want it," Judiciary Chairman Terrance Tom said in recommending his committee approve the bill. The proposal would convene a convention to consider changes to the Hawai`i constitution.
The bill, which now goes to the House Finance committee, may face trouble in the Senate. Senate President Norman Mizuguchi said in his speech on the Legislature's opening day he believes the constitutional convention should be put off until Native Hawai`ians can work out their plans for sovereignty.
By an 11-0 vote, the Judiciary Committee approved a bill to convene a constitutional convention June 1, 1998.
Under the proposal, 51 delegates--one from each House district--would be elected on March 14, 1998, to serve in the convention.
Any changes proposed by the convention would be placed on the November 1998 General Election ballot for ratification by voters.
Office of Hawai`ian Affairs Trustee Hannah Springer urged the committee to delay scheduling a constitutional convention for several reasons, including:
1) Hawai`ian delegates, advisers and staff will have their own convention to darft a document to establish a sovereign Hawai`ian nation. The constitutional convention should be after that because the "Hawai`ian constitution" would require amendments to the state constitution to recognize the Hawai`ian nation and make other changes, she said.
2) A lawsuit is before the Hawai`i Supreme Court challenging the November election in which voters cast ballots in support of convening a constitutional convention. Springer said the Office of Hawai`ian Affairs believes approving a bill to convene a convention before the lawsuit is settled would be premature.
3) A hostile constitutional convention could wipe out rights that Hawai`ians have gained.
Before the vote, several committee members expressed concern about the number of delegates--51--saying the number should be double that to allow for more of a cross-section of representation.
Chairman Tom said he would work with the Finance Committee to fine-tune the bill. But he said he could only support 51 delegates both because it would be easier to handle an election and because of the cost.
S.F., CA - THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE February 1, 1997 --- Optimism faded at San Francisco City Hall yesterday that a quick settlement would be reached with United Airlines in the first big fight over the city's new domestic partners law.
Developments made it clear that negotiations over a side letter to a 25-year lease at San Francisco International Airport would not result in a settlement in time for a vote scheduled for Monday's Board of Supervisors meeting.
United, the world's largest airline and the biggest carrier at the airport, requested a delay yesterday in the supervisors' vote, which already had been postponed once. The airline also released to the press a letter to airport director John Martin, outlining United's stance in the dispute. United has been bargaining with the city but has been largely silent to the public since a supervisors' committee sought to attach domestic partners wording to the airline's lease on January 14.
At issue is the city's new law, effective in June, that requires any company or nonprofit agency doing business with San Francisco to provide the same spousal benefits to unwed registered straight, gay and lesbian couples as the city provides to married couples.
The January 30 letter from Francesca M. Maher, a United vice president for legal affairs, to airport director Martin is alternately conciliatory and legally ominous.
``United is committed to undertake a full, fair, good-faith review and consideration of all the issues and concerns raised by the domestic partners ordinance and to arrive at a result that is consistent with such a review and consideration,'' Maher wrote.
In the next sentence, however, Maher obliquely threatened legal action: ``We most assuredly cannot foreclose or limit any of our legal options.''
Coupled with United's hiring of a City Hall lobbyist and a local public relations firm, the release of the letter indicates the airline was blindsided by the controversy and is taking steps to counter the furor as talks with the city continue.
In the face of these developments, Supervisor Susan Leal, one of the elected officials involved in talks with United, remained upbeat and said she thinks the request for a second delay is reasonable. Last Monday, the supervisors postponed the vote for a week, after being assured that talks were moving along.
``I think we are real close to reaching an agreement,'' Leal said late yesterday. ``They are considering additional language.''
Even before United released its letter, Leal and Supervisor Leslie Katz had asked for the language to be strengthened to indicate United's intention to eventually devise a domestic partners policy.
United's 25-year lease for land for a new flight kitchen and an equipment repair facility was reached in September. The new law -- passed unanimously by the supervisors and signed by Mayor Willie Brown in December -- says that even before the June 1 effective date of the domestic partner provisions, any lease for more than two years should contain the language, or at least a pledge by the business to move in the direction of compliance. The airline contends that the ordinance should not be a factor in the current lease.
``Approval of the lease cannot and should not be linked to the new domestic partners ordinance,'' Maher wrote. ``The domestic partners ordinance, the possibility or potential of a domestic partners law being enacted, or any other extraneous development, for that matter, was not a factor in any lease discussions or negotiations.''
She also said, ``United's position on the immediate issue -- approval of the lease -- should not, however, be interpreted as signifying an attitude that is dismissive or not fully appreciative of the concerns and objectives of the domestic partners ordinance.''
Washington, D.C. Jan. 29, 1997 --- A day after President Clinton called for an end to "bickering and extreme partisanship" in his inauguration speech, Sen. Jesse Helms introduced a raft of bills demonstrating that he has no intention of heeding that call.
Helms, a North Carolina Republican, introduced bills Jan. 21 assailing the administration's policies on abortion, school prayer and civil rights, and seeking yet again to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Council on the Arts.
"Senator Helms clearly has no plans to join the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that both the president and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott have voiced," said Winnie Stachelberg, HRC legislative director.
Among the bills Helms has introduced was one disingenuously titled the Freedom of Speech Act, which is actually intended to eliminate policies instituted by Clinton to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in federal employment.
"Senator Helms continues to search for new legislative means to preserve a right to discriminate against and spread lies about gay people," Stachelberg said. "This is not about free speech but about legalizing discrimination against gays and lesbians. Plus, Senator Helms has shamelessly filched a tactic that was used unsuccessfully by extremists who tried to block equal rights in Maine and Colorado with anti-gay state ballot initiatives."
Voters in Maine rejected the ballot measure in 1995. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court found the Colorado measure was unconstitutional.
The Helms bill would prohibit the federal government from providing protections to its employees against sexual orientation discrimination at work. Only those classes of individuals already included in federal law would be protected against discrimination in federal employment. Sexual orientation is not among those categories.
In his first term, Clinton instituted sexual orientation non-discrimination policies for all Cabinet-level federal agencies, excluding the uniformed military.
However, it is still legal in 41 states to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace -- something an overwhelming majority of Americans think is wrong. Polls show that between 70 percent and 85 percent of all Americans think such discrimination is wrong.
"So here's Jesse Helms, out of step with the majority of his own constituents. In addition to the bill allowing sexual orientation discrimination, Helms also introduced S. 42, a bill to outlaw abortion; S.46, a bill to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to outlaw affirmative action programs; and S. 4, a bill to deny federal funds to any state or local educational agency that "prevents participation in constitutional prayer in schools."
Instead, Ellen will be moved to Tuesdays at 8:30 PM from March 4 through April 23, 1997, replacing Life's Work, which is expected to be canceled. The move will make room for Arsenio Hall's new show which will be showcased in Ellen's regular timeslot. According the ABC, Ellen will return to its Wednesday night timeslot in time for May sweeps.
GLAAD's Entertainment Media Director Chastity Bono reports that the media watchdog organization is pleased that ABC has reconsidered its plan to give Ellen a two-month rest. However, Ms. Bono added, "GLAAD would like ABC to finally end the speculation about whether an Ellen coming out episode will air. The public has waited patiently but now our patience is waning."
"We are encouraged by the latest news from ABC that Ellen will remain on the airwaves and we hope it signals that ABC and Disney will continue to do the right thing," said William Waybourn, GLAAD's managing director. "If ABC truly desires to paint an accurate picture of our diverse American landscape, it must not crop out gay and lesbian Americans. When Ellen Morgan finally steps out of the closet we will all win-viewers and the network will benefit from an accurate reflection of the lives of real Americans, including gay men and lesbians."
GLAAD maintains an "Ellen Watch" World Wide Web site at http://www.glaad.org.
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.
New York & San Francisco, January 23, 1997 --- As an April 1 deadline looms for all U.S. political asylum applicants, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund announced Thursday the release of their jointly created legal manual, Asylum Based on Sexual Orientation: A Resource Guide, to assist asylum seekers in the U.S., particularly those who have been persecuted on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status.
Under the provisions of the controversial 1996 U.S. immigration law, all asylum seekers now in the U.S., including those who have been persecuted in their home countries on the basis of their sexual orientation, must file applications by April 1, or face severe restrictions on their ability ever to make applications.
The Guide's editor, IGLHRC Asylum Project Coordinator Sydney LEvy, said, "This is a ground-breaking resource that will help lawyers and their clients better prepare their cases. The court decisions, legal articles, and referral information published in the Asylum Guide never before have been available together."
Lambda Staff Attorney Suzanne B. Goldberg, who assisted in compiling the Guide, said, "Given the squeeze on the rights of all those seeking to escape persecution in their homelands, the situation for lesbian and gay asylum seekers and those with HIV or AIDS is particularly precarious. Not only do they face harrowing violence and harassment in their native countries, but they encounter discrimination when our government refuses to take seriously threats related to sexual orientation or HIV status."
Provisions of the new immigration law, effective April1, severely curtail the means through which immigrants can attain residency, deny more government benefits to both documented and undocumented immigrants, and permanently may bar immigrants who currently reside in the U.S. from receiving asylum. Asylum seekers in the U.S., particulary those who have been persecuted on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status, are struggling to file before the new law takes effect.
Lambda Executive Director Kevin M. Cathcart said, "This unprecedented Guide should help ease the passge to safety for more people who are persecuted in their home countries. Helping them gain asylum, now more than ever, may be life saving."
The 500-page Asylum Guide contains articles from nationally renowned attorneys and legal advocates detailing their work, court decisions, and relevant legislation from all over the world, including Asutralia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as supporting documents from United Nations commissions and the United States Justice Department.
Based in San Francisco, IGLHRC protects and advances the fundamental human rights of those persecuted because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status throughout the world. IGLHRC's multifaceted approach combines monitoring, documenting, and lobbying with grassroots organizing, public education, and technical assistance.
IGLHRC has become an important resource for immigration lawyers and their clients from all over the world specificaly in preparation of refugee claims based on fear of persecution due to sexual or gender orientation if the client returns to his or her homeland. IGLHRC's Asylum Project has provided critical documentation to more than 900 individuals seeking political asylum or other hardship-based immigration status.
IGLHRC has become an important resource for immigration lawyers and their clients from all over the world specifically in preparation of refugee claims based on fear of persecution due to sexual or gender orientation if the client returns to his or her homeland. IGLHRC's Asylum Project has provided critical documentation to more than 900 individuals seeking political asylum or other hardship-based immigration status.
Lambda, the oldest and largest legal organization defending the civil rights of lesbians, gay men and people with HIV and AIDS, recently represented a Russian lesbian in the first sexual-orientation based asylum case before a federal appeals court. The woman seeks to remain in the U.S. after being forcibly detained and threatened with electroshock treatment and psychiatric hospitalization in Russia for being a lesbian and publicly supporting lesbian and gay rights. Lambda also is awaiting a decision in the case of a Brazilian gay man who fears he will face anti-gay death squads if he returns to his country.
The Guide is available for $50. (Institutional price, $75). A reduced price of $28 (without binder) is available to low-income clients and pro-bono attorneys.
Order the Guide by contacting: International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, 415-255-8680, 1360 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, or Lambad Legal Defense and Education Fund, 212-995-8585, 666 Broadway, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10012.
HONOLULU ADVERTISER, January 24, 1997 ---The state House yesterday passed--with seven dissenting votes--an amendment to the Hawai`i Constitution that would restrict marriage to male-female couples only.
The House needed only two-thirds--or 34 votes--to pass the measure, which goes to the Senate next.
Rep. Terrance Tom, House Judiciary Chairman, urged his colleagues to pass the bill, saying it would "completely and finally resolve the issue the Supreme Court has inflicted on our state."
An appeal is pending in the state Supreme Court ot Circuit Court Kevin Chang's ruling last month that the state should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Rep. David Tarnas spoke against the measure and asked his colleagues to amend it to ensure gay and lesbian couples have the same benefits as married couples.
"In this way, we sould be providing equal protection under the constitution and succeed in the goal of resolving this issue out of the courts," he said.
Further debate on the issue was cut off when Minority Floor Leader Cynthia Thielen called for a roll-call vote, which made each member take position on the bill.
Since the Republicans increased their numbers in the House to 12 in the election last year, they have been able to force the roll-call vote, but yesterday was the first time they called for one.
The seven representatives who voted against the measure were Ed Case, Eric Hamakawa, Hermina Morita, Scott Saiki, Dwight Takamine, Roy Takumi and David Tarnas.
The following representatives voted "kanaloa," which meant their vote was registered as "yes," but with reservations: Nester Garcia, Marilyn Lee and Mark Takai.
Garcia said he voted in favor (after opposing such an amendment last year) because he saw the House was willing to make some concessions by offering a "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill that extends four rights of married couples to same-sex couples. That bill will go before the full House on Monday.
The following respresentatives voted for the same-sex marriage amendment: Felipe Abinsay, Lei Ahu Isa, Samson Aiona, Dennis Arakaki, Romy Cachola, Jerry Chang, Galen Fox, Kenny Goodenow, Chris Halford, Robert Herkes, Ken Hiraki, Ken Ito, Merwyn Jones, Michael Kahikina, Ezra Kanoho, Bertha Kawakami, Quentin Kawananakoa, Barbara Marumoto, Bob McDermott, Ron Menor, Colleen Meyer, David Morihara, Mark Moses, Bob Nakasone, Tom Okamura, Marcus Oshiro, Paul Oshiro, David Pendleton, Alex Santiago, Calvin Say, David Stegmaier, Nathan Suzuki, Cynthia Theilen, Terrance Tom, Paul Whalen, Gene Ward, Brain Yamane, Noboru Yonamine, Terry Yoshinaga, Joe Souki.
HONOLULU ADVERTISER -- Janaury 25, 1997 --- A bill to give same-sex couples some of the benefits enjoyed by married couples won overwhelming approval yesterday in the state House, but it stops short of the domestic partnership legislation sought by the gay community.
The approval of the "reciprocal beneficiaries" measure comes on the heels of Thursday's House passage of a proposed constitutional amendment to undo state court rulings that same-sex marriages must be allowed.
The House action came just house before more than 3,000 supporters of the ban on same-sex marriage converged on the Capitol for a rally that included music and speeches.
"We are here to let them know how much we cherish traditional marriage in Hawai`i," said Lamar Benavides, the master of ceremonies for the gathering sponsored by Hawai`i's Future Today, a coalition of opponents of same-sex marriage.
Rush-hour traffic on South Beretania Street seperated the crowd from a contingent of 33 supporters of same-sex marriage.
Both House measures go to the Senate, where a bill combining the amendment and benefits for gay and lesbian couples was introduced yesterday by Sens. Avery Chumbley and Matt Matsunaga, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
"We recognize that the public wants to decide whether marriage should be between one man and one woman, but why would anyone want to deny funddamental civil rights on the basis of sex?" Matsunaga said.
The Senate bill proposes a constitutional amendment to allow the state to limit marriage to the couples of the opposite sex, provided that such a restriction "shall be effective only if laws do not deprive any person of civil rights on the basis of sex."
Differences between the House and Senate legislation would be worked out in a conference committee.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Terrance Tom said the House's benefits bill addresses issue most frequently raised during hearings, such as the right for hospital visits and to make health decisions, joint property rights, inheritance rights and right to sue for wrongful death.
In a packed hearing room, the bill's proponents argued that the legislature cannot discard God's definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and that allowing same-sex marriages would hasten the downfall of American society. Gay and lesbian rights advocates, meanwhile, said the ban flies in the face of the state's commitment to opposing discrimination against any group.
Several lesbian couples appeared before the Assembly's Health Committee to argue that banning same-sex marriages would deny gays and lesbians access to the economic benefits readily available to married heterosexuals -- benefits that gays and lesbians pay for with their taxes and which help ensure the development of stable families.
If the legislature passes the bill, New Jersey would join Pennsylvania and 15 other states that have passed laws denying legal recognition to same-sex marriages, in reaction to a Hawaii court case in which same-sex marriages were ruled legal.
The decision has been appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, but the initial ruling worried many states that are opposed to gay marriages, because the ``full faith and credit'' clause of the U.S. Constitution requires one state to recognize the legal contracts of another.
The dispute prompted passage last year of a federal law signed by President Clinton that says the U.S. government will not recognize gay marriages and that allows states to refuse to recognize such unions licensed in other states. Twenty-one states have considered and rejected such legislation.
``Marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental institution. It ensures the future of society and protects the children,'' said Assemblywoman Marion Crecco (R., Essex), sponsor of the N.J. bill. ``If you recognize same-sex marriage, it trivializes the institution of marriage.''
State law currently does not refer to same-sex marriages.
Crecco said it was necessary to clarify New Jersey's definition of marriage, since the state's highest court has not ruled on the matter. Crecco said her bill was not intended to attack anyone, merely to oppose a grab for special privileges by a particular group.
But gay and lesbian rights activists countered they were not looking for special benefits, merely those that are now granted to heterosexual married couples and not to them.
``The most ridiculous of all claims is that allowing same-gender marriage would destroy the institution of marriage as it exists,'' said Gina Reiss, president of the New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition. ``How worse can it get? I don't have to tell you about the divorce rate or the rate of infidelity and unpaid child support by deadbeat dads.
``The failure to legally recognize our marriages only undermines the larger social purpose of marriage.''
Gay and lesbian rights advocates had lobbied the committee hard to eliminate at least one clause in the bill, and they succeeded. The committee voted to remove a line that stated that same-sex marriage ``is against the public policy'' of the state.
Wendy Berger of the New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition said that removing the provision would make it easier to defeat the law in court.
She said that the state has developed a clear public policy to protect various groups from discrimination, and a substantial number of laws bear that out, including one that allows gay and lesbian couples to adopt children. The ban would conflict with that substantial body of law.
The bill passed on a party-line vote, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. It must still gain passage in the full Senate and Assembly.
HOUSE KILLS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL By Matthew Tully, Staff Writer
THE GARY POST-TRIBUNE January 22, 1997 --- A Gary lawmaker has killed a bill in the Indiana House of Representatives that attacked same-sex marriages, but supporters of the initiative vowed Tuesday to continue fighting for their cause.
Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, chairman of the Committee on Family, Children and Human Affairs, has declined to give House Bill 1019 a public hearing, effectively ending its chances of becoming law. The bill sought to make void in Indiana same-sex marriages granted by other states.
"I just don't think this is a problem in this state," said Smith. "As soon as we have a married gay couple move from Hawaii to Indiana, then we'll deal with it."
Meanwhile, a similar, though separate, bill is being heard in the Senate today. If the bill is approved by that chamber, it will be sent to the House where Smith's opposition could put the proposal in limbo until the waning days of the legislature. At that point, the measure would be eligible for placement in a number of related bills.
Tuesday, supporters of the ban were praising Smith, while opponents were lobbing criticism.
Rep. Woody Burton, a Republican from suburban Indianapolis, authored the House bill in response to the legalization of same sex marriages in Hawaii. Such marriages cannot be performed in Indiana, but Burton worries couples married elsewhere would be entitled to health and other benefits if they relocated to the Hoosier state.
"A person's lifestyle is their own choice, but I don't want the government legitimizing anything of that nature," he said. "I'm really shocked Vernon won't even give the bill a hearing."
But in the mind of Indiana Civil Liberties Union lobbyist Terri Schroeder, the House and Senate bills are an example of wasted legislative time and a "broad, hateful statement."
"It's being sold as this big ploy to outlaw gay marriages here," said Schroeder. "But it's completely unnecessary. Under Indiana law, same-sex marriage is already against the law."
THE AIR FORCE TIMES, January 6, 1997 Issue --- There is a chance that the constitutionality of the military gay ban could be decided by the Supreme Court by late 1997.
While the high court refused to hear the first appeal under "don't ask, don't tell" in October, several cases now either decided by or pending before lower federal courts could leave the military services with unclear directives on the law's legality, inviting Supreme Court review.
"The facts show that the military's rationale for the gay ban is baseless," said Michele Benecke of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay-rights organization that is spearheading the fight against "don't ask, don't tell."
"We will try to get Congress to force the administration and the Pentagon to abide by the law," said retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis of the Family Resource Center, a conservative organization that supports the gay ban. "We continue to believe the law is very different from what is being implemented," Maginnis said.
"Don't ask, don't tell," which became law in 1994 after contentious debate between the Clinton administration and Congress, took measures to protect individual privacy but left the proscription on homosexuality intact. It has withstood two major legal attacks in 1996.
Former Navy Lt. Paul Thomasson unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court after losing his bid for reinstatement before a panel of federal judges in Richmond, Va.
And former Air Force Capt. Richard Richenberg, who lost a 2-1 decision in an Omaha, Neb., federal court, now plans to ask a full panel of judges with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the case.
But other unresolved cases could provide opposite results. In California, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the separate cases of Navy Petty Officer Mark Philips, Navy Lt. Richard Watson and Army 1st Lt. Andrew Holmes.
The judges' decision on Philips' case, the oldest of the three, will likely influence the outcomes of Watson's and Holmes' efforts to challenge the gay ban. Legal experts and people close to the gay issue believe the Supreme Court justices would want to act quickly to resolve any confusion and give the armed services a clear interpretation of what the 1994 policy regarding homosexuals in military service actually means. A most intriguing case
Of all the pending cases, Richenberg's is, perhaps, the most intriguing. Under "don't ask, don't tell," service members who say they are gay have the opportunity to remain on duty by appearing before a discharge board and rebutting the presumption that they will engage in banned homosexual acts. Richenberg's attorney, Tom Kayser of Minneapolis, said the judges hinged their decision against the officer on "innocuous" comments.
"Here is a guy who has an outstanding service record and who said he would obey the rules and regulations of the U.S. Air Force and the Uniform Code of Military Justice," said Kayser, a retired Air Force Reserve lieutenant colonel.
According to court records, Richenberg testified on numerous occasions that he never engaged in homosexual sex while on active duty and promised to refrain from doing so as long as he wore the uniform. Still, because the former missile officer could not convince judges that he would never marry or engage in sex with another man, his discharge stood.
Letters can be mailed to:
Letters to the Editor; Air Force Times; Springfield, VA 22159.
Or faxed to: (703) 750-8601 E-MAIL: MCOAIR@aolcom
Concerned Maine Families said that it will submit petitions and 62,157 signatures to the secretary of state today. That's about 11,000 more than the number required for a citizens' initiative to go before lawmakers, according to the Herald.
But Patricia Peard, the president of the ACLU of Maine, told the Herald that it may not be as simple as a change of wording.
States ''don't dishonor each others' marriages,'' said Peard, who is also a family law specialist at the firm of Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer and Nelson. Marriage laws already vary greatly from state to state, yet marriages are recognized everywhere, she said.
Peard likened the situation to state laws in the South which for generations banned interracial marriages. Eventually, those laws were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, she said.
''Gay people live together now in what amounts to same-sex marriages, and I haven't seen heterosexual marriages falling apart,'' she said.
Gov. Angus King said he won't make a decision on whether he would veto or support the Concerned Maine Families' proposal before it reaches his desk.
Washington, D. C. Jan. 21, 1997--- The Human Rights Campaign Fund has elected four new board members, each bringing a record of commitment go gay and lesbian equality, as well as a variety of backgrounds and perspectives, co-chairs Mary Breslauer and Fred P. Hochberg announced today.
"Not only are we thrilled to recruit such talent and commitment to the board, we also worked to increase the diversity of our leadership to reflect the community we represent," Breslauer and Hochberg said.
Michael T. Duffy of Boston is director of consumer affairs and business regulation for the state of Massachusetts. In that post, he is responsible for the state's consumer education efforts and oversees the agencies that regulate insurance, utilities, racing, doctors, banks and liquor sales. He is the former chairman of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and testified last year before Congress on behalf of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Duffy is a former press secretary for the Massachusetts Republican Party and in 1990, ran for the Massachusetts state House.
Candice J. Marcum, a license professional counselor and therapist, co-founded Oak Lawn Community Services, a gay and lesbian counseling service in Dallas. Marcum has a long history of involvement with HRC and other lesbian and gay organizations. From 1992 to 1996, she served on HRC's Board of Governors. She is also chair of the Gay/Lesbian/Bi Caucus of the American Association of Marriage & Family Therapists, and a member of the Dallas Human Services Commission. She is co-author of the book AIDS: The Caregivers Handbook.
Stampp W. Corbin is president, chief executive and owner of Resource One Computer Systems Inc. of Columbus, Ohio, a leading minority-owned provider of computer products to the telecommunications industry. Before joining Resource One, Corbin was director of market development for Bull HN. Earlier in his career, Corbin was a senior account marketing manager for IBM.
Marylouise Oates is a longtime Democratic Party activist, journalist and crusader in the fight against AIDS. She is a founding member of the Municipal Elections Committee of Los Angeles, the first gay and lesbian political action committee in the United States. She lives in Washington, D.C.
The board of supervisors' government efficiency and labor committee refused Tuesday to approve a 25-year contract for United Airlines' new support facility at San Francisco International Airport until the lease is changed to conform to the new law.
The law, signed in November by Mayor Willie Brown, requires contractors doing business with the city to provide the same benefits for employees' domestic partners that they do for legal spouses.
Contracts must state that a company is aware of the requirement and will abide by it. The United agreement does not.
Although the new ordinance does not take effect until June 1, at least two contracts have been held up because another new law stipulates that any long-term lease signed before then must comply with the ordinance. The two concern United, the airport's largest tenant, and a smaller lease agreement with Pacific Bell Mobile Services.
An airline spokeswoman said United is disappointed that an otherwise routine process should be held up.
``It is our understanding that the domestic partner ordinance has not yet taken effect,'' United spokeswoman Connie Huff said. ``We are surprised and disappointed that our routine contract renewal was questioned.''
Huff would not discuss United's policy on domestic partner benefits. She also would not say whether the airline planned to fight the law. She said only that company officials were reviewing the issue.
Gay activist Jeff Sheehy called United's action outrageous and said the airline was trying to evade the law by pushing a long-term contract now.
``That's what it looks like to me,'' said Sheehy, president of the Harvey Milk Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Democratic Club. ``It looks like an attempt to avoid paying domestic partner benefits to United Airlines employees.''
United accounts for 40 percent of the airport's business and employs 17,000 people locally, airport spokesman Ron Wilson said.
The board of supervisors is to consider the lease Jan. 27, but only if United and the airports commission rewrite the deal.
The law, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, requires firms that conduct business with the city to provide benefits such as health insurance, bereavement and family medical leave to domestic partners if they already provide them to spouses of employees.
City officials say 8,000 to 10,000 companies contracting with San Francisco could be affected by the law.
Washington, D.C. Jan. 17, 1997 --- Vice President Gore pledged continued support for the gay community in the second Clinton administration after meeting today in the White House with a group of gay and lesbian leaders.
"Vice President Gore was very open to our requests and positive about continuing the dialogue we began four years ago," said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign. "We also invited the vice president ot stop by the gay and lesbian inaugural ball on Monday night, and we hope he will attend."
Also attending the meeting were: Roberta Achtenberg, an official with the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Keith Boykin, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Martin Ornelas-Quintero, head of the Latino/a Lesbian and Gay Organization; Jeff Soref, a gay Democratic activist; and Jeff Trammel, board chair of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.
The gay leaders voice strong reservations about President Clinton's plan to impose an annual per-capita cap on Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest source of medical care for people living with HIV and AIDS, providing coverage for 53 percent of Americans living with AIDS, including more than 90 percent of children living with AIDS.
They also urged the vice president to depoliticize the discussion surrounding needle exchange programs as a means to stop the spread of HIV. And they stressed the continued need for a White House liaison to the gay and lesbian community, a post that is currently vacant.
"We also thanked Vice President Gore for his leadership last year in pressing for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill to outlaw job discrimination based on sexual orientation," Birch said. "Gore had promised to fly back to Washington from an appearance to cast the tie-breaking vote on ENDA in the Senate, if needed. As it turned out, ENDA failed to pass by one vote."
Los Angeles, CA January 17, 1997 --- Seeking to vindicate the right of lesbians and gay men to engage in peaceful political protest, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund is using the city of Los Angeles, charging an LAPD officer slammed a gay civil rights demonstrator in the face with a police baton because of his sexual orientation and political views.
The case stems from a non-violent demonstration held November 15, 1991, one of a series of protests against Governor Pete Wilson and his veto of a civil rights bill protecting lesbians and gay men in California.
"It is a very serious thing to have the police using violence to silence peopole who are criticizing the government," said Jon W. Davidson, supervising attorney for Lambda's Western Regional Office in Los Angeles. "Police stepped up aggression against this protest simply because it was about gay civil rights. This is a clear-cut case of police misconduct against a law-abiding gay man who was exercising his civil rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances," he said.
Trial in Mackler v. City of Los Angeles is set to begin Tuesday, January 21, with Davidson serving as lead trial counsel, assisted by Lambda attorneys Jeffifer C. Pizer and Myron Quon. Carol Sobel of the CLU Foundation of Southern California is co-counsel.
Peter Mackler, 39, was taking part in the angry but peaceful 1991 rally when, as Los Angeles Police Department officers ought to disperse protesters, one office began shoving him. Mackler turned half-way around to get the officer's name and badge number, and the officer responded by raising his baton and striking Mackler in the face with such force that he was knocked to the ground and his glasses were thrown 25 feet. The officer, David Peck (who now works for the Tacoma, Wqshington, Police Department), with another officer, then grabbed Mackler's feet and arms and threw him several times as the gathering was forced away from the Woodland Hills hotel where the governor was attending a state political fundraiser.
Mackler, who was never arrested or charged with any violations, suffered severe injury to one eye and later experienced headaches, dizziness, anxiety, sleeping problems, feelings of humiliation and depression. Eyewitnesses have verified his account of the incident, much of which was captured on videotape and by still photographs".
"I will never forget the look of venom in his face when he raised that baton," Mackler said of Peck's actions. "I was in excruciating pain and never felt so traumatized and helpless," he said.
Lambda Executive Director Kevin Cathcart said, "The LAPD has a long history of brutality, and the lesbian and gay community, like other minority groups, is often its target. Once again, Rodney King-style, despite eyewitness accounts, photos and videotape, the police refuse to clean up their act."
Lambda is also assisting a lawsuit brought on behalf of an LAPD officers who has been harassed, suspended and fined in connection with his being openly gay and exercising his first amendment rights. Davidson is "of counsel" in that case, Grobeson v. City of Los Angeles, now in pre-trial stages.
Mackler, after his complaints were denied through official LAPD channels, filed suite in 1992. Because of difficulty locating the police officer and a court backlog, the case just now is coming to trial.
THE WASHINGTON POST January 17, 1997 --- Chita Rivera is the big entertainment at Monday's gay inaugural ball, but organizers are hoping Ellen DeGeneres will be the big news. The sitcom star, who cheerfully evades questions about her sexual predilections, is taping a video message for the 1,500 expected to gather at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.
"Melissa Etheridge came out at this venue four years ago, and clearly, we'd like to see a trend," said David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, which is throwing the ball with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Victory Fund.
DeGeneres' television character, Ellen Morgan, has dropped tons of hints that she may be a lesbian, and the comedian has promised that Morgan's proclivities will be revealed this season. In or out, in or out? Make up your mind already!
Just don't expect to see this particular episode on ABC any time soon.
ABC executives have confirmed a months-long rumor that they are considering a story line on "Ellen" where comedian Ellen Degeneres' character reveals she is a lesbian.
During a show taping Friday, Degeneres cut three takes of a segment where she sings a song, "I'm Scared of Being Afraid," according to Touchstone Productions, which makes the show.
The third take included the unscripted "coming out" declaration, which sources said was greeted by wild cheers.
A Touchstone official said privately that Degeneres was blowing off some steam after hearing that her show was being taken off the air during March and April to make room for a new Arsenio Hall comedy.
"It's not intended for a telecast. It is not going to be on any telecast," said ABC spokeswoman Janice Gretemeyer.
ABC Entertainment President Jamie Tarses said last week that a "coming out" episode was being worked on, but that the network wants to see whether it works creatively.
Following Rodman on the Worst-Dressed list were Glenn Close, Lisa Kudrow, Helen Hunt, Goldie Hawn, Diane Keaton, Sarah Ferguson, Elizabeth Shue, Drrew Barrymore, Claire Danes and Lori Petty.
In the third take of the song, the Morgan character crooned, "So here's what I have to say...And by the way, I'm gay! It's okay!" As the studio audience cheers and applauds, she ends the song with the refrain "I'm gay! I'm gay! I'm gay!"
A spokesperson for Ellen indicated that the take was unscripted, and seemed to be a spontaneous improvisation by DeGeneres. He did not indicate whether it would be aired. The coming out song does seem to make clear DeGeneres' intention to let her character out of the closet, according to GLAAD.
A January 10 Associated Press story quoted ABC Entertainment President Jamie Tarses as wavering on whether a coming out episode would air, and announced ABC was pulling Ellen from their line-up during March and April to showcase a new sitcom starring Arsenio Hall.
GLAAD's Managing Director William Waybourn stated that "it would be a grave injustice if ABC robbed the American public of this tremendous opportunity to get to know such a positive lesbian character."
For more information contact Alan Klein (GLAAD national communications director) at (212) 807-1700 or e-mail klein@glaad.org.
The watchdog AIDS advocacy and protest group ACT UP in Washington, DC recently obtained documents from the Federal Election Commission that show the American AIDS Political Action Committee, AIDSPAC, distributed less than $40,000 to candidates after raising over $588,477. AIDSPAC raises money through fund-raisers, telemarketing, and direct mail, to distribute to Senate and Congressional candidates supportive on AIDS issues. More than a quarter of a million dollars was paid out by AIDSPAC to consultants, with the largest sums going to the Sheridan Group, a consulting firm owned by the head of AIDSPAC, Tom Sheridan.
"He paid himself over three times the amount of money his political action committee gave to candidates," ACT UP Washington spokesperson Steve Michael states. He continues, "A grand total of $284,151.51 was paid out to various assorted consultants, fund-raisers, and Sheridan cronies."
Sheridan and his organization came under scrutiny over two years ago in an investigative report by Washington Blade writer Lou Chibarro. "This is a repeat of his 1994 performance. These campaign documents indicate that Sheridan is up to his old tricks. The record is clear, over 90% of the funds spend by Sheridan when to overhead. That is unacceptable." adds Michael.
Sheridan hosting RED RIBBON INAUGURAL CELEBRATION
ACT UP Washington is also concerned that Sheridan plans to cash in on the upcoming presidential inauguration. On page 25 of the January 10, 1996 issue of the Washington Blade Sheridan is promoting what he calls 'The Red Ribbon Inaugural Gala....A benefit for Loretta's (Sanchez) legal defense against Bob Dornan's continuing challenge to overturn his defeat. Let's send him home once and for all."
People need to know their money is going to Sheridan's latest get-rich-quick scheme. ACT UP Washington members plan to distribute copies of Sheridan's campaign forms in front of the Nightclub sponsoring the event. The event is scheduled for Sunday, January, 19, 1997 from 5 to 7:30 PM.
Allen Ritter, organizer of the Health Brigade, comments, "Maybe Tom Sheridan and Newt Gingrich can go into the laundry business together."
Individuals wishing to contribute to a defense fund for Congressmember Loretta Sanchez should contact her office directly. ACT UP members will post, distribute and circulate the appropriate address. After all if you want to give Loretta Sanchez $100 --- give it to her directly. If you look at the Sheridan record it figures that less than $10 of that $100 will ever get to Sanchez.
FOLLOWING IS A BREAKDOWN OF FUNDS COURTESY: FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION
Payments to The Sheridan Group $131,839
The smith Company $ 12,952
AB Data $ 43,283
G & S $ 49,027
Barry Goodinson $ 1500.
Augie Paculdar $ 4089.21
Barry Goodinson $ 4500
Augustin Paculdar $ 2347.
Barry Goodinson $ 3000
Torie Osborne $ 7500
Luke Adams $ 750.
Romash $ 7500
C & S $ 1550.30
$ 3573.18
$ 750.
$ 882.63
E U Services $ 1607.
$ 5881
$ 1612
FOR A TOTAL OF $ 284,151.51 (m/l)
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CANDIDATES AND COMMITTEES
$ 39,250
A total of $38,250 was divided among the following candidates for congress and senator. Morella, Sanchez, Gantt, P Kennedy, Alioto, Fazio, Zbur, Navarro, McKinney, Ward, Williams, McGovern, Delahunt, Stabenow, Rivers, Pascrell, McCarthy, Mack, Reed, Coppersmith, Quigley, Baird, Bruggere, Curtis, Smith, Capps, Ward, Furse, Torricelli, Durbin, Harken, Hinchey, Hooley, McBurney, Blagojevich. To PACS advocating or promoting a Democratic Party majority, Sheridan's organization donated the grand total of $1,000.
Copys of the report are available from ACT UP Washington
Sheridan also receives huge lobbying $$$$$ from AIDS organizations. More on that later.
Washington, D.C. Jan. 10, 1997, HRC --- More than half a million cases of AIDS have been diagnosed in the United States and over 300,000 men, women and children in communities across this country have died from this disease. AIDS is now the leading cause of death among Americans age 25-44.
Medicaid is the single largest source of health insurance for people living with AIDS, providing access to physician visits, hospitalization, prescription drugs, home health care and long-term care. Currently, about 50 percent of adult Americans living with AIDS -- and 90 percent of children with the disease -- receive their medical coverage through the Medicaid program.
As the epidemic continues to spread in lower-income communities, Medicaid will be an even more essetnial lifeline of support for Americans living with HIV and AIDS. The need to maintain the historic federal-state partnership on Medicaid has never been greater.
To balance the budget, the administration and Congress may propose implementing a per-capita cap for Medicaid. Such a cap wouldn't change who is eligible for Medicaid, but it would limit the amount of money the government spends annually on each Medicaid recipient. This amount is likely to be lower than the average cost of care per Medicaid beneficiary living with HIV and AIDS.
We must call on the president and Congress to reject such proposals. For 30 years, Medicaid has provided health care to those who could otherwise not afford it. And remember, Medicaid cuts are cuts in medical care for men, women and children living with HIV and AIDS.
Urge the president and Congress to preserve Medicaid. We must not balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society -- people with disabilities, including AIDS; poor women and children and low-income seniors.
Contact the president either by calling (202) 456-1414, writing to him at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W, Washington, D.C. 20500, or via e-mail at presidenti@whitehouse.gov.
Call your senators and representative through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. If you aren't sure who your members of Congress are, just ask the switchboard operator and you will be informed and then connected. You cal also send electronic messages to Congress through the Human Rights Campaign's website at http://www.hrcusa.org. Write to Congress through the U.S. mail as well.
In letters sent Wednesday to 360 high school counselors across the state, the Arizona Psychological Association urged school officials to allow gay student support groups.
''Even if students do not attend support groups, just the knowledge that there is support for them is a benefit,'' said Tucson psychologist Jean Baker, a member of the association's Gay and Lesbian Issues Task Force. The letters were sent one day after Republican Rep. Dan Schottel announced he intends to sponsor legislation requiring public schools to ban gay support groups from access to campuses. The veteran Tucson legislator said his bill would apply from kindergarten through university levels.
The proposal is expected to be patterned after legislation approved in Utah last year. That law allows school districts to deny access to clubs that ''materially or substantially encourage criminal or delinquent conduct, promote bigotry or involve human sexuality.''
Baker said banning gay support groups effectively sanctions harassment against homosexuals.
''It could take away the one place where gay students can talk to someone,'' she said.
Gay teens are at high risk of depression and suicide because they feel isolated, the association said.
''The purpose of the support group is to provide a safe place--a place to be who you are,'' said Tam De Witt, a Tucson High School nurse. ''It's a group for people to gain support and friends.''
Schottel's proposal targets groups like those at Desert View High School in Sunnyside Unified School District and Tucson High Magnet School in Tucson Unified School District. Both groups were student-initiated.
Tucson High started a group called The Pink Triangle three years ago. This year, about 17 students have attended meetings. Discussions include how to talk to parents about sexuality and how to handle disparaging remarks at school.
At Desert View High, a group of about 10 students that formed this year holds regular meetings.
The new regulation requires that all city contracts exceeding $1,000 include a provision prohibiting anti-Gay discrimination among the contractors and their employees. The order will affect only those contracts signed with the city on or after Dec. 20.
"Mayor Campbell is very much in favor of diversity in the workplace," said spokesperson Nick Gold. "If a company wants to do business with the city, they ought to share in our policies as well. It wouldn't be good business practice for the city [otherwise]."
Georgia does not currently have a statewide law that bans anti-Gay discrimination, although the Atlanta city government includes sexual orientation as a protected class within its discrimination policy. Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, also bans anti-Gay discrimination among its employees.
Allen Jones, president of the Gay professional group Atlanta Executive Network, said the new order shows that Campbell "recognizes that discrimination doesn't work in business," according to a report in the Southern Voice.
"I think the greatest impact will be in the mainstream business community in that it will focus on diversity being good for business," he said.
According to Gold, Atlanta's policy was inspired by groundbreaking legislation signed in November by San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. A bit more far-reaching than the recent Atlanta order, Brown's legislation requires city contractors to supply the same benefits to the unmarried partners of employees that they do to married partners. San Francisco has required city government contractors to prohibit anti-Gay discrimination among employees since 1972.
WASHINGTON, DC, JANUARY 10, 1997 --- According to the Associated Press, ABC's Ellen is ready to "come out." However, AP reports, "it's another question whether ABC is ready to let her." ABC Entertainment President Jamie Tarses admitted this week that an episode of the sitcom that reveals that Ellen DeGeneres' title character is a lesbian is in the works. The ABC executive also stated that the network will "wait-and-see" whether the episode will air.
In the January 10 wire story, Tarses is quoted telling reporters at the Television Critics Association meeting, "We are very seriously considering about going in the direction that everyone's speculating on." She would not, however, make any guarantees that the episode will air and stated that she and other ABC executives would make the final decision on the episode's fate. It has also been reported that Ellen will go off the air in March and April in order to make room for a new sitcom that stars Arsenio Hall. Ellen is expected to return for the May sweeps.
The following is a statement from GLAAD's Managing Director William Waybourn:
"It is a great tragedy that ABC is now waffling on what could be one of the boldest and most dramatic steps ever taken by an American television network. It defies understanding that ABC would float yet another trial balloon to determine if they should air this groundbreaking episode of Ellen after the first trial balloon rose so successfully and to such unexpected heights. We hope that with the ascension of Jamie Tarses we will see ABC do the right thing and take a stand for diversity that includes lesbian and gay Americans. Diversity is a hallmark of American life-not fear and ignorance which only perpetuate bigotry and hatred. It would be a grave injustice if ABC robbed the American public of this tremendous opportunity to get to know such a positive lesbian character."
GLAAD maintains an "Ellen Watch" World Wide Web page at http://www.glaad.org.
Contact: Alan Klein (212) 807-1700 Pager: (800) 601-5483 (please include area code) Email: klein@glaad.org
By Doug Struck, Washington Post Staff Writer
THE WASHINGTON POST January 6, 1996 Louise Young and her partner, Vivienne Armstrong, rode atop the Family of America float in President Clinton's inaugural parade four years ago, the first openly gay couple invited to be in an inaugural parade.
It was a "thrill that I never forgot," said Young, a Dallas software engineer.
This year, she and Armstrong had their plane tickets and made hotel reservations for Clinton's second inauguration -- and then decided not to go. "The truth is, it's sweeter to remember how it was," she said. "The hope I felt four years ago was total elation, just indescribable. The feeling is not there this time."
Her ambivalence mirrors that of the gay community in the Washington area and elsewhere as plans are made for Clinton's Jan. 20 inauguration. Members of the community are glad he won, and they give him credit for what he has done for gay people. But they can't embrace him as fondly as last time.
"It's definitely true that the enthusiasm is lower," said Elizabeth Birch, whose Human Rights Campaign is helping to sponsor an unofficial ball on inauguration night, the Triangle Ball for gay men and women.
In the view of many gay people, Clinton buckled under conservative pressures in his first term. They say he mishandled the issue of gay people in the military, and they fault him for not fighting hard against a Colorado anti-homosexual law and for signing a bill during his reelection campaign that seeks to prevent same-sex marriages.
Those actions have caused some gay rights activists to hop off the Clinton bandwagon.
"There's been a long list of betrayals and disappointments coming from Clinton," said Rick Rosendall, a Washington gay rights activist. "And a shorter list of mostly lip service and window dressing."
Mario Cooper, a black New York gay rights activist who was prominent in Clinton's 1992 campaign, said, "I don't think there's much to celebrate." Cooper "absolutely went wild and celebrated every second" at the first inauguration, he said, but will not bother coming to Washington this time.
"He's accomplished some of what he set out to do," Cooper said of the president. "I also think in terms of vast numbers of black people, poor people, people with AIDS and young people, he really dropped the ball." Still, the gay community will take its place at Clinton's second inauguration, as it did at his first.
"Gays and lesbians are pretty well integrated in all the events," said Paul Yandura, co-director of the Presidential Inaugural Committee's outreach effort to the gay community. "People are excited. There's an overwhelming demand for tickets."
The Lesbian and Gay Bands of America, a group composed of members of 24 gay bands in the country, has been asked to perform along the Pennsylvania Avenue route before the parade, as it did four years ago.
Douglas Litwan, the San Francisco president of the band organization, said that a few members objected to playing this time and that others were disgruntled at not being asked to be in the formal procession.
"We had a lively debate," he said. "But the majority voted to pursue it." The 175 members -- with flag wavers and cheerleaders -- will perform in silver jackets and red berets at the Federal Trade Commission building at Sixth Street NW.
In addition to the $150-a-ticket formal Triangle Ball, to be held in the Omni Shoreham Hotel, there are other gay-oriented events. A "Women's Inaugural Gala" on Jan. 18, at the Galleria at Lafayette Center on 21st Street NW, to benefit three lesbian causes will be the first lesbians-only inaugural event, according to organizer Julian Potter.
There will be a breakfast at the Willard Hotel on Jan. 18 for gay elected officials, a cocktail reception Jan. 19 at the Dupont Plaza Hotel held by a Virginia gay Democratic club, and a dance Jan. 18 at the Zei Club in Northwest Washington that will be "the premier dance of the weekend," said Kathleen DeBold, deputy director of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.
Organizers of the events say that they have encountered no obstacles to openly gay celebrations in Washington and that they expect none. They say they made the breakthrough in 1993 when Clinton promised to include gay people in his "vision of America" and included gay groups in the inaugural festivities.
That openness, after 12 years of more conservative Republican administrations, helped create a mood at the first inauguration that gay people still refer to in almost reverential terms. Many now concede that they expected Clinton to throw open all the doors to gay people.
"We felt this incredible joy," said Lisa Strongin, a Visalia, Calif., lawyer who was president of the Lesbian and Gay Bands four years ago. "Short of some stuff from people like Rush Limbaugh, we got a very positive reaction. No one gave us dirty looks or sent us bombs in the mail."
Birch, of the Human Rights Campaign, agreed. "The last inauguration was unbelievable," she said. "The clouds parted, and the sun streamed through, and we all had hope . . . for about a half-hour. We had such hope that the only place to go was down.
"We are all older and wiser now," she said. "We didn't come nearly as far as we had hoped four years ago, but we are far more integrated than before. Clinton's record has been outstanding compared to other leaders'." Birch and others credit Clinton for appointing dozens of openly gay officials to his administration, lifting the ban on giving security clearances to gay people, appointing an openly lesbian federal judge, endorsing anti-discrimination measures for gay people and supporting AIDS research and funding.
"It's the most inclusive administration in history," DeBold said. But Clinton's first official stumble occurred immediately after his inauguration, when he tried to lift the ban on gay people in the military. His new administration was stunned by opposition to the move and eventually endorsed a "don't ask, don't tell" rule that pleased neither side.
Since then, the Clinton administration has been wary of publicly combating the opponents of so-called gay rights measures. When Congress last year sent Clinton a bill endorsed by his Republican opponent, Robert J. Dole, that defined marriage as exclusively heterosexual, Clinton signed it, to the shock of his gay supporters.
"I really hadn't counted on that bill," Young said in explaining her decision not to come to this inauguration. "You've got to be realistic, and on balance I still support him. But the thing that disappointed me most was his signing it."
Michael Wheatley, a Washington civil rights lawyer and gay rights activist, said: "It was a real betrayal. I was going to hold my nose and vote for him until he signed that."
But others say pragmatism dictates continued support for Clinton. Potter, planner of the lesbian gala, said the fact that the group can hold the dance is evidence of progress.
"It's a big change that we are able to host an event like this and people are not afraid to come out and be publicly identified as lesbians," she said. "The president has taken us to the 50-yard line, just not the 100."
Washington, D.C. Jan. 4, 1997 -Washington BladeGay activists around the country will be pushing a straightforward, meat-and-potatoes menu of issues during the upcoming state legislative sessions, most of which begin this month. Comprehensive Gay civil rights protections, stiffer penalties for anti-Gay hate crimes, a repeal of sodomy laws, and domestic partnership benefits are all staples of this legislative diet, according to interviews with activists in all 50 states.
But activists have no appetite for one of the main dishes that many
state legislatures are expected to serve up in their next sessions:
anti-Gay marriage bills, which will seek to ban marriages between same-sex
couples and/or deny recognition to such marriages performed in other
states. During the past two years, 16 states and the federal government
passed anti-Gay marriage laws, and the governors of Mississippi and Alabama
issued executive orders barring same-sex marriages. This year, such bills
are anticipated by Gay activists in every state that has not already passed
such a law.
"It probably will be reintroduced," said Scott Evertz, spokesperson of the Gay group Action Wisconsin. A bill banning recognition of same-sex marriages died in the Wisconsin legislature last year.
"Legislators who stayed away from it before because it was mean-spirited, I'm afraid, [saw] how easily it passed in Congress. They might sign onto it," Evertz said.
A Hawaiian state judge's Dec. 3 ruling that the state had no sufficient reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples may also bolster the chance for passage of bills in other states designed to block recognition of Gay marriages. The Hawaii Supreme Court, which many observers believe will uphold the judge's order, is expected to review the case in 1997.
"Once Hawaii hits, when the Supreme Court finally rules, there will be no stopping [the bill] then," predicted New Jersey Gay activist Gina Reese. For now, activists in the Garden State are concentrating on containing a pending anti-Gay marriage bill in legislative committees.
Forty-four state legislatures were up for re-election last November, and the political landscape of many shifted in a way that could also have an effect on the hopes of Gay-related bills. Now, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 20 states have legislatures that are controlled by Democrats and 18 by Republicans. In eight states, each party controls one chamber; in three states, one party controls one chamber, but the parties are split in control of the second chamber; and in Nebraska, which is unicameral, the legislature is nonpartisan.
The outlook for Gay bills depends on the political climate and history in each state. In states like California, for instance, the Democrats recaptured control of the state Assembly last month, a positive development for pro-Gay legislation.
"It's certainly ended up in our favor," said Ellen McCormick, a lobbyist for LIFE: California's Lesbian/Gay and AIDS Lobby. California Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante last month appointed an open Lesbian, Assemblymember Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), to be speaker pro tem of the Assembly.
But Democratic control of a legislature does not always translate into a more favorable environment for pro-Gay legislation.
"Both Democrats and Republicans in South Carolina are pretty homophobic," explained South Carolina activist Pete Tepley. In Georgia, observed Larry Pellegrini, a lobbyist for the Georgia Equality Project, "many conservative Democrats would be philosophically Republicans in other places."
Taking into account these regional particularities, Gay activists plan to lobby for pro-active legislative agendas in the coming sessions that vary from state to state:
* In 16 states, activists say they may work to get a comprehensive
bill introduced and passed to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation in employment, housing, and other arenas.
* In 14 states, activists may try to enact hate crimes laws that
enhance penalties for crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias.
* In 10 states, reforming sodomy laws is on the agenda.
* In 8 states, Gays plan to advocate for an employment
nondiscrimination bill.
* In 8 states, gaining domestic partnership benefits is on the
agenda.
* And in 7 states, activists say they will work to maintain or
increase AIDS funding.
"A Gay civil rights bill remains the cornerstone of our agenda," said Dick Dadey, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda in New York. For the past four years, a bill to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in various arenas has passed the New York state Assembly but has been repeatedly blocked from a Senate vote by Republicans who control that chamber.
"Our No. 1 priority is a hate crimes bill," said Dianne Hardy-Garcia, executive director of the Lesbian and Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. The current hate crimes law in Texas stiffens penalties for bias-motivated crimes, but does not list any specific groups that are protected. Texas Gay advocates want to expand the law to explicitly name "sexual orientation" and other characteristics.
Marriage and kids
But in many states, activists expect to spend much of their time on the defensive. Gay civil rights advocates in 14 states say they do not anticipate any pro-Gay legislation to be introduced in the coming sessions. (A few of these states, however, like Vermont and New Jersey, already have many protections for Gay residents.)
"Unfortunately, the Tennessee legislature is not a friendly place for pro-active Gay and Lesbian rights legislation," noted Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, one of the states with no pro-Gay bills on its radar screen. "What we have to spend most of our time doing is damage control."
Jim Wiltberger, political director of the Forum for Equality in Louisiana, put it more bluntly: "In the past couple years, we've reacted to dumb legislation that some of the [members of the Louisiana] legislature came up with," he said, citing a recent attempt to mandate HIV antibody testing for couples seeking marriage licenses.
In addition to a second deluge of marriage bills, the next most frequently cited pieces of anti-Gay legislation that activists say could soon be introduced are bills to ban Gay people from adopting, foster parenting, or having custody of children. Activists in 10 states said they think these bills could be on the horizon.
Attacks on AIDS funding, bans on the presentation of Gay issues in public schools, and mandatory HIV antibody testing bills are considered a possibility by activists in three states. But beyond that, the focus of attacks on equal rights for Gay people seems to be directed through bills banning legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
In a few cases, Gay activists are coming up with bills specifically aimed at countering anti-Gay legislation. In four states, for instance, activists say that a bill seeking to legalize same-sex marriage could be introduced. And while activists in five states anticipate no legislative effort to bar Gay issues from public schools, they said will be working on legislation that seeks to protect Gay students from discrimination.
As state lawmakers file into their chambers for the first session of the new year, it remains too soon to guess the fate of Gay-related legislation in each legislature. In 1996, states witnessed a dramatic rise in anti-Gay bills, largely attributed to the popularity of bills banning same-sex marriage. If the trend holds for another year, as activists nationwide fear it might, 1997 could deliver anti-Gay marriage laws to the majority of the 50 states -- before such unions are legalized in even one.
Christopher Jones contributed to this report.
Columbia,SC, THE STATE December 29, 1996 --- It was crimes against blacks - church burnings and a shooting near Pelion - that prompted several state lawmakers to start working on a bill to toughen penalties for hate crimes.
But whether gays deserve protection too is the question likely to cause the most debate in the upcoming session of the South Carolina Legislature. Two different bills are being written. One says hate crimes include those against gays; the other doesn't.
Both bills, which are expected to be introduced early in the session, would give more prison time for a crime if prosecutors prove the crime was motivated by hate against a particular group because of race or religion.
Protecting gays from violence because of their sexual orientation "is the right thing to do," said Sen. Darrell Jackson, the Richland Democrat writing one bill.
"I look forward to convincing people that you don't have to be a supporter of gay rights to believe no one should have crimes committed against them because of their sexual orientation," Jackson said.
But Cam Crawford, lobbyist for Attorney General Charlie Condon, said Condon doesn't want to include gays in his proposal because the issue is so divisive it would kill the bill.
"Nobody has demonstrated to us that there's a problem with (people being attacked because of) sexual orientation," Crawford said. "If they can show us a problem, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
Tony Snell, co-chairman of the S.C. Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement, said the group is gathering information for legislators. Snell said many gays either don't report attacks to police, or don't report the motivation for the attacks. Some gays are in the closet, while others expect to encounter bias from the police, he said.
"I know people who have been attacked and even shot, who will not report it as a hate crime," he said.
Federal statistics show four South Carolina hate crimes against gays in 1994, compared with 23 racial hate crimes, two motivated by religion and one motivated by ethnicity.
Crawford said Condon is not excusing such crimes.
"Charlie prosecuted cases like that in Charleston," he said. "Everybody would agree that nobody has the right to beat them up. The question would be, should they get special attention? That's the debate that needs to take place."
"We're not asking for anything special," Snell said. "We're asking for protection."
Snell said some politicians underestimate gays' economic and political power and said some recent polls have shown broad support for protecting gays from job discrimination.
But he, like Jackson, said the issue is about safety, not accepting homosexuality.
"The simple issue is protecting people from being hurt," he said. "We certainly don't demand that anybody accept it, although we'd like to see that."
Jackson had been working with Sen. John Courson, a Richland Republican, on a "biracial, bipartisan" hate crime plan. (Jackson is black; Courson is white.) Courson has decided not to sponsor the bill. But he says First Amendment concerns, not the sexual orientation issue, are what changed his mind.
Crawford said House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, has agreed to sponsor Condon's bill, as have several Lexington County lawmakers.
Both Crawford and Jackson said they hope to work together. Jackson stressed that if the bill fails, South Carolina will get more negative national press, the kind it's already getting because of church burnings and the shooting of three black teen-agers near Pelion.
"To be honest with you, I think we can't afford not to have it pass in South Carolina," Jackson said. "That's why I want to be careful to introduce the right thing."
Lisa Greene covers federal law enforcement agencies and courts. She can be reached at 771-8659 or by fax at 771-8430.
The opinion came in response to a request from state Sen. Jim Jensen of Omaha, who is expected to propose such a bill when lawmakers convene next month.
States nationwide are amending their laws concerning marriage because there is potential that Hawaii could begin to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Hawaii circuit Judge Kevin Chang issued an injunction Dec. 4 prohibiting Hawaii from not recognizeng same-sex marriages. The state of Hawaii wants that injunction lifted.
There is some concern that Nebraska homosexual couples could travel to Hawaii to get married and then demand that Nebraska is legally required to recognize that marriage.
Based on a 1977 Nebraska attorney general's opinion, same-sex marriages are not recognized in Nebraska. However, state law recognizes all marriages which are valid by the laws of other states and the United States.
Monday's opinion noted that the Defense of Marriage Act, adopted by Congress in September, protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages.
Deputy Attorney General Steve Grasz wrote the opinion, which was approveed by Stenberg.
Lincoln NE December 31, 1996 THE OMAHA WORLD-HERALD -- A legislative ban is the only certain way for Nebraska to avoid recognizing Hawaiian same-sex marriages, says an attorney general's opinion released Monday.
A Nebraska official with the American Civil Liberties Union said he doubted that the Legislature would have the power to ban same-sex marriages once they've been recognized in another state.
"The ACLU will argue that such laws violate the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution," said Matt LeMieux, executive director of the Nebraska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It doesn't matter what the Legislature does. They can't violate the U.S. Constitution."
The attorney general's opinion helps set the stage for Act II of Nebraska's battle over same-sex marriage. Last year, as a court case over the issue dangled in Hawaii, Nebraska legislators heard arguments for legalizing gay marriage -- as proposed by State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha -- and for banning it, as advocated by leaders of the Nebraska Christian Coalition.
The 1996 Legislature adjourned without resolving the issue.
In September, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act with the intent of excusing states from recognizing same-sex marriages contracted in other states.
In early December a Hawaii trial court ruled that Hawaii could not refuse to grant licenses for same-sex marriages. The ruling has been delayed from taking effect until it is appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
LeMieux said the Hawaii challenge was based on an equal rights amendment to that state's constitution. The courts ruled that it was sex discrimination to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses.
A similar court challenge probably would not succeed in Nebraska, he said, because it does not have such an equal rights amendment to the Nebraska Constitution.
Monday's opinion was requested by State Sen. Jim Jensen of Omaha, who said he was considering offering a bill to ban same-sex marriages in the 1997 session. Jensen also has requested more information from the ACLU.
"I think marriage of one man and one woman should be preserved, let me say that," Jensen said. "I wan to look at the situations and all the ramifications that come from same-sex marriages. It's a major issue, and I want to make sure I feel comfortable with it."
Deputy Attorney General Steve Grasz wrote that the uncertain wording of Nebraska marriage law may require the Legislature to take action to avoid recognizing same-sex marriages despite the Defense of Marriage Act.
Grasz pointed to a section in Nebraska law that "all marriages conducted without this state, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were contracted, shall be valid in all courts and places in this state."
Given that provision, Grasz said, Nebraska legislators may have to enact an explicit ban.
Grasz disputed LeMieux's contention that the U.S. Constitution still would require Nebraska to recognize same-sex marriages. "That's why the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted, " he said.
Jensen said he still was not convinced that Nebraska needed to enact an explicit ban. He said the thought the federal legislation had resolved the issue and that he planned to further study the issue.
NOTE: Write or call Senator Jensen at the following address and phone number:
Sen. Jim Jensen 10525 Mullen Road, Omaha, NE 68124 1 (402) 471-2622 (Capitol)
City to demand benefits for gay couples By Mark Evans ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO Saturday, December 28, 1996 --- A unique demand is about to be made on thousands of U.S. companies: Extend health insurance and other benefits to same-sex couples, or forget about doing business with this city.
The ordinance, in a city with one of the nation's largest gay populations, affects many of the roughly 10,000 U.S. companies contracting with San Francisco to provide everything from banking services to office supplies.
Critics call the policy ill-conceived and costly, approved without ample study or public notice. Supporters say it's a basic anti-discrimination measure that encourages companies to grant unmarried domestic partners -- most of whom are same-sex couples -- the same benefits extended to wedded couples.
"It would be important to me even if I didn't have a partner, simply as a moral matter," said Joe Leslie, a 52-year-old assistant vice president at Bank of America who, with his partner Michael, stands to benefit from the policy.
Leslie said he and Michael are "as loving as any married couple that ever walked this Earth," and for co-workers' spouses to receive better benefits is simply unfair.
"We do the same work, our spousal status is virtually the same," Leslie said. "(Yet) they get benefits I don't get."
Whether to extend health insurance and other benefits, like bereavement or medical leave, to a worker's domestic partner has been debated by private industry for years. In San Francisco, Bank of America officials have discussed the policy but haven't enacted it. The Gap, Levi Strauss & Co. and the Walt Disney Co. are among those that have such policies.
"If it's good enough for Mickey Mouse, it's good enough for San Francisco," said city Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who co-authored the measure.
Yet despite unanimous approval from the Board of Supervisors and an endorsement from Mayor Willie Brown, the policy has detractors.
"We really feel the supervisors did not do their homework," said Carol Piasente, a spokeswoman for the city's 1,950-member Chamber of Commerce. "They're not prepared to answer all the questions that come up because they didn't think of all the details."
According to Piasente, confusion abounds.
Who precisely is affected, and what is a contract? For example, does the legislation apply to hundreds of airlines that technically do business with the city every time they pay a gate tax at San Francisco International Airport? Or to nonprofit agencies that work with the city's homeless? Most importantly, how much will it cost?
"We don't have a clue about the costs," Piasente said. "That's the problem. Nobody knows."
She said the business community failed to complain about the legislation earlier because it was in the dark.
"This thing moved ahead very quickly and kind of caught people unaware," she said.
City officials, still tinkering with some wording of the legislation, say they don't expect it to take effect for six months. But some companies are scrambling to plan.
"We're continuing to look at how the ordinance affects us and our relationship with the city. No decisions have yet been made on our part," said Dennis Wyss, a spokesman for Bank of America, the nation's third-largest. The bank, which employs 10,000 of its 93,000 workers in San Francisco, provides the city with checking services, among other things.
"We don't think it's good public policy for the city to tie its hands in the way this ordinance mandates," Wyss said. "We think San Francisco taxpayers get the highest quality services for their money when the city keeps its options open."
Others complain that the ordinance demands extension of benefits only to "registered" domestic partners. While many cities have such registries -- including San Francisco, where about 3,500 couples are on the books -- most cities do not.
"When you do this kind of legislation at a local level, you're imposing costs on local companies that make them not competitive in the bigger marketplace," Piasente said. "It's the kind of thing that, if done on a national level, some of the unfairness issues would be taken away."
Toward that end, Ammiano said he hopes the measure spreads. Politicians in other cities -- including New York, Seattle and West Hollywood --have inquired about the measure, he said.
Leslie also expressed hope that the policy will spread to other cities.
"Not to do it is simply discrimination," he said. "It's really stupid."
Phoenix,AZ, THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC December 24, 1996 --- Conservative state lawmakers are quietly preparing legislation that would ban gay groups from high school and university campuses and make sodomy a felony.
Under a plan being circulated to Republican lawmakers, the Arizona Board of Regents would be required to bar any group that encourages "criminal or delinquent behavior" or "involves human sexuality." School boards also would be required to keep such organizations from meeting or having faculty sponsors.
Under a second bill, the penalty for sodomy would be raised from a misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony.
"I think the bottom line is protecting our children and protecting society," said Rep.-elect Karen Johnson, R-Mesa.
"I have a problem with having my tax dollars sponsoring that," Johnson added. "They (gays) want to sodomize, and I don't want them recruiting (on campuses) for that."
Gay support groups for students are officially sanctioned at both Arizona State University and the University of Arizona. ASU also has a support group for gay faculty and staff.
The bills are patterned after similar legislation passed last year in Utah allowing school boards to deny access to gay and lesbian groups.
The Arizona legislation is being backed by the state chapter of the Traditional Values Coalition, a handful of conservative lawmakers, and outgoing House Speaker Mark Killian, who has helped by facilitating behind-the-scenes meetings about the bills.
Opponents of the measures called the bills a "mean-spirited" attempt to discriminate against gays.
Rep. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, said introduction of the anti-gay legislation threatens to disrupt the Legislature just as it begins trying to resolve big-ticket issues such as education finance.
"I just think these are religious zealots who are trying to push their views on everyone else," Cheuvront said. "We're not dealing with America 1996. We're dealing with America 1950."
According to Johnson, the measures are controversial but not aimed at dividing lawmakers.
"I can work with a homosexual person - queers in the Legislature - on other issues, but when it comes to that issue I have my feelings," she said. "I'm not trying to persecute them (gays) but they do not deserve special treatment."
Backers of the measures have found a patron saint in the form of Killian, who has been convening meetings of lawmakers and the social activists who wrote the bills.
The activists, led by Traditional Values Coalition Chairman Frank Meliti, have begun passing out copies of a video entitled "Gay Rights, Special Rights" to Republican legislators.
Ironically, the same group that produced the video also distributes a film called "Joseph Smith's Temple of Doom," which denigrates the Mormon religion. Many of the proponents of the anti-gay legislation, including Killian and Johnson, are Mormon.
Killian, who was unaware that Traditional Values Coalition members were handing out the video, or that its creator had made a film about the Mormon Church, brushed both factors aside.
He added that while he expects "a lot of discussion" on the legislation, it should not be automatically labeled as an attempt to spurn gays.
"Today, if you are against something, you use the old, tired out phrase that it's hateful," Killian said. "It's typical rhetoric by the opposition."
Conservative activists tried to get the gay-ban legislation introduced last year, but had to wait in line behind a bill banning same-sex marriages. That measure passed easily and was signed into law by Gov. Fife Symington.
Meliti predicted that the bills, which he said have broad appeal for social conservatives, will pass.
"Members of faculty have abused their positions to help these people (gays) push their agenda," Meliti said. "It's (gay lifestyle) no different than any other criminal activity."
Cheuvront blames the appearance of the sex-based legislation on the infusion of new Mormon members into the Legislature.
"What you're seeing are Mormon views from Utah," Cheuvront said. "There's a huge connection between the Utah Mormons and now the Arizona Mormons and you're going to see a lot of this kind of thing this session."
Not all Mormon Republicans are supporting the legislation, however. Rep. Mike Gardner, whose Tempe district takes in Arizona State University, said he attended a meeting on the bills with Meliti and three other lawmakers in Killian's office.
He called the encounter "bizarre" and said he will not support the legislation because it seeks to solve a non-existent problem.
"I don't like any of the bills," Gardner said. "Identify the problem. If there's not a problem, then why create one?"
FYI
Proposed legislation
- Sodomy would become a Class 6 felony. It is currently classified as a Class 3 misdemeanor under Arizona law.
- Gay or lesbian student groups would be barred from meeting on high school and university campuses statewide. Schools also would be prevented from allowing such groups to use faculty members as their sponsors.
![[Map]](images/mapicon.gif)
![[Index]](images/indxicon.gif)
![[Comment]](images/cmnticon.gif)
![[Search]](images/srchicon.gif)
![[Home]](images/homeicon.gif)
![[Up]](images/upicon.gif)
![[Next]](images/nexticon.gif)
www.glinn.com Copyright © 2008 by GLINN Media Corporation