Evaluation2012 296SpecialRightsLaw3FinalRev4p

Final Text
June 18, 2012

Dear Jacksonville City Council Members:
Below is the most comprehensive analysis of the new anti-discrimination
legislation (Ordinance 2012-296, Footnote 1) that you will likely encounter. So,
please take a few minutes to read it.
One need not have a religious basis to oppose this special Protected-
Class legislation. An agnostic or atheist could find the ensuing arguments
persuasive.
The analysis identifies the numerous defects within the proposed
ordinance modification. There is also a Cost-Benefit assessment of the
legislation, as well as a critique of the research studies, which are claimed by
advocates to justify the creation of a new Protected Class with Special Rights.
Some items I hope you will consider:
f Have representatives of private and public schools testified AT LENGTH on
the transgender issue, as it may affect bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker
rooms and perhaps dormitories? Refer to pages 3 and 4, below.
f Have representatives of religious societies been asked to testify AT LENGTH
on their mandated compliance, specifically when an educational facility (is)
supported in part . . . by public funds; when facilities and activities serve
persons of a different faith (the poor, for example), and when employment is
connected to non-religious activities? Refer to the analysis on page 5,
below.
f If you cannot withstand the onslaught of activists, make this issue a plebiscite
for November. The timing could not be better. And, there is no rush for this
legislation; the LGBT movement has been grinding ahead for 40 years.
Otherwise, adopt a sunset provision for the ordinance.
Be courageous. Do not be intimidated by the name-calling of LGBT
activists. Even though the justification for the measure is negligible (see the
-XVWLILFDWLRQ section, below), it is always the militant LGBT strategy to call the
opposition Homophobes, Haters and Hate Groups. It is a strategy that
works only on the weak.
Best Regards,
Philip Wemhoff, Physicist
PS: Attached is a pdf version of this letter, which preserves the intended
format and which contains, at the end, the scarce 2008 UNF study report.

1. Bill 2012-0296 is at http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2012-0296%5COriginal%20Text/2012-296.doc.
Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296
Page 2 of 39
An AnaIysis of 2012-296 and Advocates CIaims
The proposed ordinance modification is part of a nationwide activist
movement, targeting states and municipalities, which seeks to acquire special
legal rights for homosexuals and transgenders (and others listed in Footnote
2). Without exception, all of the proposed code language, including the phrase
gender identity or expression, appears verbatim in scores of legislative
initiatives throughout the nation (including Florida Senate Bill 2012-340, see
Footnote 3).
It is precisely the same phraseology advanced by activist websites, and it
is the language reviewed in sympathetic legal journal articles.
Advocates, having targeted Jacksonville, accuse the community of
widespread discrimination. But, their supporting evidence is missing (which
will be discussed in the Justification section, below).
Before City Council succumbs to the onslaught, and awards Special Legal
Rights (which it would NOT grant so hastily to many other groups), it should
evaluate the Benefits and Costs resulting from such a decision, which
evaluation would be undertaken for any other significant legislation, but not for
this one (as argued below, this code modification is supported by emotion only).
To follow is an assessment of the Benefits (special rights status) and
the Costs (the monetary price and the forced overthrow of community
institutional values), as well as the Justification for the ordinance modification.
Benefits
Homosexuals and transgenders would gain a hiring advantage over
heterosexuals, and would be granted a protected status for their behavior.
Hiring. This legislation creates a bias in hiring. Homosexuals and
transgenders, in many cases, will receive preferential treatment in hiring,
since such victims can seek judicial remedy, if they are not hired. Given the
intimidation role of litigation, businesses will tend to favor hiring this newly-
protected class over heterosexuals, who do not have such a coercive force
working on their behalf. And, when layoffs are necessary, employers will

2. Researchers at the UCLA School of Law report distinct categories other than Transgender, including
GenderQueers, Gender Rebels, Intersex, Androgynous, Third Gender and Two-Spirit. See
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Harrison-Herman-Grant-AGender-Apr-2012.pdf.
Websters defines TRANSGENDER: of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or a
transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which
corresponds to the person's sex at birth, http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/transgender.
3. Florida SB0340 is at http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/0340/BillText/Filed/HTML.
Page 3 of 39
tend to retain homosexuals and transgenders (other factor being equal) for
fear of costly grievance proceedings and litigation.
Code-Protected Lifestyle. In contrast to current community norms, the law
gives license to atypical or immoderate behavior in the workplace and in
Public Accommodations. And, it offers a vehicle to suppress Free Speech
by means of legal sanctions against employers (additional examples given in
the &RVWV section, below).
Because gender identity or expression means behavior (see Sec.
406.104(h), Definitions), the proposed ordinance allows homosexuals and
transgenders to undertake, in the workplace and Public Accommodation
settings, behavior which they alone deem consistent with the expression
of their alternative lifestyles.
And, the behavior of this new protected class is safeguarded by ill-
defined language. For example, the new law provides that it shall be
unlawful . . . to discriminate against an individual . . . because of [this]
expression [i.e. behavior] (Sec. 402.201, Page 4), where discrimination is
defined unintelligibly as a distinction . . . indirectly against a person because
of and a difference in treatment because of . . . sexual orientation, gender
identity or expression (Sec. 402.107, Page 3). This open-ended language
(and the litigation it threatens) is ideal for cowering employers and Public
Accommodation managers to the will of this new protected class.
No other group of Americans receives immunity from its instinctive
expression, which is defined by the new code as behavior. This
expression right specifically protects behavior, including appearance, acts,
mannerisms, gestures and language consistent with homosexual and
transgender lifestyles.
And, the inventory of lifestyles, and thus protected behaviors, is
considerable. In addition to transgender there is a large catalog of other
distinct gender identity modalities and, hence, licensed behaviors. Refer
to the research report from the LGBT think-tank, The Williams Institute of
the UCLA School of Law, Footnote 4.
Restrooms, Dressing & Locker rooms. All establishments, including
schools and medical facilities, may soon be required to offer multi-gender
bathrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms (or, otherwise, to allow
chromosomal males to use female facilities).
This legal mandate solves a central homosexual-transgender
grievance voiced by two victims quoted in the 2009 JCCI study: Bathrooms

4. Researchers report distinct categories, accepted by the LGBT community, other than Transgender,
including GenderQueers, Gender Rebels, Intersex, Androgynous, Third Gender & Two-Spirit. See
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Harrison-Herman-Grant-AGender-Apr-2012.pdf.
Page 4 of 39
emerged as a central trouble point, especially for the transgendered
residents of Jacksonville . . . along with changing rooms, [because these
rooms] are specifically segregated by gender.
So, because two homosexuals were slighted by comments overheard
in restrooms, as chronicled in the JCCI report (comments which the new law
would not prevent), all Jacksonville facilities must be converted.
In addition, in the absence of multi-gender facilities, the law will allow
bisexual males, in transgender mode, to view women in various stages of
undress, in locker rooms, dressing rooms and perhaps school dormitories.
The Holder Justice Department has already forced the University of
Arkansas to make female restrooms available to a male transgender. See
Footnote 5.
In the &RVWV section, below, there is more information on what facilities
are affected nearly every Jacksonville building and institution is impacted.
&RVWV
The private and public costs resulting from these special legal rights are
enormous, given the absence of documented discrimination. And, the costs
will be suffered by every Public Accommodation, whose identities are
enumerated in City Ordinance Section 406.301 (see Footnote 6).
The following are some of the regulated facilities and the conditions under
which the new law will be imposed. Refer to the proposed code text (abridged)
2012-296, whose link available in Footnote 7.
Regulated Facilities. Regulated are all Public Accommodations,
mean(ing) any establishment, service, place or building which offers, sells,
or otherwise makes available to the public any good, service, facility,
privilege or advantage. The list includes, but is not limited to:
f Any retail or wholesale establishment, 406.301(a);
f Restrooms, locker rooms and dressing rooms are undoubtedly regulated,
since they are always a subset of Public Accommodations, Sec. 406.301
(In San Francisco, as well, unlawful discrimination includes denial of
access to bathroom/restroom that is consistent with and appropriate to the
customers or clients gender identity);
f School dormitories may be among the regulated facilities by means of
Sections 408.102 and 408.105, Pages 10 & 11, which regulate Housing
facility . . . home, living quarters or residence of one or more families;

5. Find the University of Arkansas story at
http://uafortsmith.campusreform.org/group/blog/exclusive-obamas-doj-forces-university-to-allow-38-year-old-male-to-access-womens-restroo.
6. See http://library.municode.com/showDocumentFrame.aspx?clientID=12174&docID=2
7. Bill 2012-0296 is available at http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2012-0296%5COriginal%20Text/2012-296.doc.
Page 5 of 39
f Any library or educational facility supported in part or in whole by public
funds, 406.301(f); public funds may mean local, state or federal funds,
either direct funding and scholarship programs, or the use of donated
public facilities, like athletic fields and meeting rooms;
f Hospitals, health care facilities . . . swimming pools, nurseries,
kindergartens, or day care centers, Sec. 406.301(f), and
f Hotel, motel or other establishment which provides lodging to transient
guests, Sec. 406.301(b).
Incidentally, the list of regulated Public Accommodations was unjustifiably
omitted from the legislations abbreviated text, the text that was released to
the Public.
Exemptions. The religious exemptions may be few. Religious Hospitals,
health care facilities certainly must comply with this new law (Sec.
406.301(f)). In addition,
f Facilities of religious societies are exempt only if they are operated for
other than commercial purpose to persons of the same religion, Sec.
406.302(b). So, if a religious charitable facility serves the poor of a
different faith or of no faith, the facility or activity is NOT exempt.
f Further, A religious . . . society [is exempt] with respect to . . .
employment . . . connected with . . . its religious activities [but
employment connected to non-religious activities is NOT exempt], Sec.
402.209, Page 6.
And, the under-15 employee exemption applies only in the employment
context. It will NOT protect anyone from the overreaching Public
Accommodations provisions. Consequently, any business involving creative
expression (e.g. photographers, advertising, graphic design) or counseling
(e.g. relationship counselors, financial advisors, CPAs, attorneys) can be
forced to provide services which ultimately support and promote same-sex
relationships.
Reverse Bias. The new code ensures a hiring bias against heterosexuals,
and its ill-defined language guarantees vast litigation and judicial system
costs.
f Hiring Bias. The litigation threat discourages heterosexual hiring when a
non-heterosexual is vying for the same position. It is . . . unlawful . . . to .
. . refuse to hire . . . or otherwise to discriminate against an individual . . .
because of . . . sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, Sec.
402.201, Page 4. And, other factors equal, employers will tend to lay off
heterosexuals first, to avert possible discrimination litigation.
f Substantial Litigation and Judicial Expense. In all workplaces it will be
unlawful to discriminate against homosexuals and transgenders. The
Page 6 of 39
Discrimination definition includes such imprecise and lawsuit-generating
language as A difference in treatment because of and distinction directly
or indirectly against a person because of . . . sexual orientation, gender
identity or expression, Sec. 402.107, Page 3. Litigation and judicial
branch expenses could increase significantly.
f Free Speech. The ordinance imposes a duty to police and curb all Free
Speech that a LGBT person might deem offensive. The law exposes
owners and managers of Public Accommodations, as well as employers
and landlords, to lawsuits, due to objectionable language uttered by other
employees, customers, visitors or tenants against the official victim.
Any unwelcome language, left unchecked, could be considered
discrimination under its definition: A distinction . . . indirectly against a
person because of . . . sexual orientation, gender identity or expression
(Sec. 402.107, Page 3). This is an circuitous means of suppressing that
Free Speech which is offensive but not illegal.
Further, religious speech against homosexuality should be protected
by the US and Florida constitutions. But, do not count on a fair hearing.
The initial arbiter of these Special Rights will be the Jacksonville Human
Rights Commission (JHRC), which eagerly seeks the power to eradicate
all anti-LGBT sentiment. JHRC cannot be expected to be either
reasonable or lenient.
The LGBT goal is a ban on hate speech (which is anything the
official victim says it is). In San Francisco, unlawful discrimination
includes verbal and/or physical harassment, deliberate misuse of
appropriate forms of address and pronouns by employers, coworkers,
landlords, property managers or any employee of a Public
Accommodation. And, for tolerating harassment by co-tenants
landlords and property managers are guilty of prohibited discrimination.
The term harassment is entirely undefined, so it can include mere
affronts, anything considered objectionable in the sole opinion of the
official victim the tyranny of the special protected class. See Footnote
8 for the San Francisco rules.
Coercive Power. The initial adjudicator of a discrimination complaint is the
Jacksonville Human Rights Commission (JHRC), which fervently seeks to
suppress anti-LGBT sentiment, so will not be reasonable or lenient. And,
according to an experienced judge, a JHRC ruling goes to a court with a
presumption of correctness. Once the JHRC enters an order, and takes a
businessperson to court to enforce it, a judge can use his contempt authority

8. The SF Human Rights Commission document is at http://www.sf-hrc.org/index.aspx?page=29.
Page 7 of 39
to put the businessperson in jail indefinitely until the businessperson
agrees to comply with the order, according to this knowledgeable judge.
Where matters of conscience are concerned, this is dangerously
coercive. This intimidation power will apply in the Public Accommodations,
employment and housing arenas, where managers, businesspeople and
landlords will be forced to support and endorse same-sex relationships, and
to police unwelcome Free Speech, or face the JHRC, and then face a judge.
-XVWLILFDWLRQ
Creating a new Protected Class is a no-brainer, according to the
proposals advocates. They present three main arguments:
1. Pro-homosexual-transgender laws are needed to attract talent to the City,
special-rights advocates claim.
Not true. Assertion is not the same as fact. Advocates offer no
supporting data for this claim. Brushing emotion aside, researchers tell us
theres little or no evidence that same-sex couples consider the issue of
lesbian-bisexual-gay-transgender laws in deciding where to move".
Please refer to section 1. Attract Talent to Jacksonville, below.
2. Opponents are intolerant, special rights advocates claim. They say
opponents want to leave homosexuals and transgenders vulnerable to
homophobes.
Not true. Research studies (detailed below) reveal a negligible level of
local intolerance. Advocates falsely claim that this research confirms the
presence of community-wide intolerance. They hope that no one will
actually read the reports, which exonerate the community from such
bogus prejudice claims. Refer to the section 2. Tolerance Research,
below.
3. Opponents are on the wrong side of history, advocates claim.
Not true. More communities and states have rejected these special legal
rights, than have adopted them (details below). Special-rights advocates
hope that you will believe their inevitability scam and, as a result,
abandon your principles. Refer to the section 3. Cities Reject Special
Rights, below.
1. Attract Talent to Jacksonville?
Homosexual-transgender rights advocates claim that, if the ordinance
is rejected, business will suffer, and homosexuals will refuse to migrate to the
City. But, that assertion is NOT true. Assertion is not the same as fact.
Homosexuals and transgenders are flocking to socially-conservative regions
Page 8 of 39
of the country, regions which lack the protected-class legislation which they
seek for Jacksonville.
According to Gary J Gates, homosexual demographer and co-author of
the book The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, theres little or no evidence that same-
sex couples consider the issue of lesbian-bisexual-gay-transgender laws in
deciding where to move", from the New York Times article, see Footnote 9.
Dr Gates adds, Their [migration] patterns look like the broader patterns
[of everyone else] in the U.S. Theyre moving south and west. He notes
that the states, reporting the biggest increases in same-sex couples in the
last decade (e.g., West Virginia at 245 percent, Montana at 239 percent,
North Dakota at 217 percent, South Dakota at 207 percent, and Oklahoma at
167 percent), are among the most socially-conservative states in the nation.
It's hard to believe they are [traditional] gay destination states, from his
article, published in the Huffington Post, see Footnote 10.
Jacksonville is home to one of the biggest populations of gay parents in
the country. About 32 percent of gay couples in Jacksonville [Florida] are
raising children, Dr. Gates said, citing the 2009 Census data, second only to
San Antonio, where the rate is about 34 percent. The journal article is
available here, and the link is given in Footnote 11.
Special-rights legislation is not needed, according to the data.
Homosexuals and transgenders are already attracted preferentially to
Jacksonville, which, consequently, cannot be so intolerant as claimed.
2. Tolerance Research
Regardless of the specific community being targeted, advocates claim a
community-wide atmosphere of intolerance, one that can be remedied ONLY by
this special-rights legislation (identical code language is pushed throughout the
nation, regardless of the magnitude of local intolerance, if indeed it exists).
In the Jacksonville case, advocates point to two studies as evidence of
discrimination the study by UNF in 2008 (attached) and that of JCCI in 2009,
whose link is available in Footnote 12.
And yet, these studies do NOT show the community-wide discrimination
claimed by advocates. And, most grievances reported by the studies cannot be
remedied by the new legislation.

9. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/business/same-sex-marriage-bans-are-bad-for-business-common-
sense.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all.\.
10. Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-j-gates/can-homophobia-reduce-you_b_1082729.html.
11. New York Times journal at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/us/19gays.html?pagewanted=all.
12. The 2009 JCCI study http://www.jcci.org/jcciwebsite/documents/09%20GLBT%20Discrimination.pdf.
Page 9 of 39
The homosexual-transgender community claims it has a grievance. So,
ipso facto, the grievance must be true, right? No, it is not true, as we shall see
in the research critique to follow.
The UNF Study
Undertaken for the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission, the 2008
UNF study LGBT Attitudinal Awareness Survey was based on a random
telephone survey of 512 Jacksonville residents (96.4% heterosexuals, 3.6%
LGBT, Footnote 13.), and has the following significant findings:
9 Those individuals who report race relations being poor are most likely to
report a high level of prejudice against lesbians and gays (page 13);
9 As a gauge of their own negligible personal prejudice, between 91.5% and
98.6% of respondents (depending upon age) favor equal treatment in the
workplace regardless of . . . sexual orientation (Table 2, page 6);
9 But, as a gauge of the prejudice of others, 13.7 % of respondents suspect a
high level of prejudice against lesbians and gays by the Jacksonville
community in general (Table 9, page 11);
Conclusions:
a. The self-reported extent of intolerance is not significant, attesting to the
impartiality and civility of the community. Consequently, this study does not
support the imposition of a far-reaching law in an attempt to alter attitudes
(as an indirect outcome).
b. The precise nature of the reported prejudice is not identified. Thus, the
cited prejudice is very likely an attitudinal objection to alternative
homosexual lifestyles, not specific discriminatory acts. The minimal, reported
prejudice is mere attitude, and attitude-control is NOT a component of the
proposed legislation.
The JCCI Study
Undertaken for the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission, the 2009
JCCI study, Community Engagement: Understanding the GLBT Experience
with Discrimination, utilized three modes of information gathering: A 211-
Respondant Questionnaire, Focus Groups totaling 47 Participants, and
Personal Interviews of 18 People.
The 211-Respondent Survey, undertaken at the First Coast Pride
Festival and the Black Pride Festival, has the following applicable findings:
9 Respondents, 211 of them, experienced a total of 227 discrimination events
over the prior 5 years: 4.4% were physical violence, and the remaining 95.6

13. LGBT means Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender.
Page 10 of 39
% were a combination of bullying (12.8%), verbal abuse or threats (26.4%),
teasing-jokes (41.4%) and shunning-isolation (15.0%). None can be
remedied by the proposed legislation (and violent acts are prosecuted under
existing State criminal statutes).
9 No definitions are given, and no scale is used to determine the magnitude of
each unwanted event. So, the distinctions between the terms bullying,
verbal abuse and teasing are not known.
Conclusions:
a. Frequency. The incidents are an accumulation of events over the previous
5 years. So, on average, each individual respondent endured just ONE
event (1.08) during the preceding 5-year period certainly NOT a frequent
incident rate, nor evidence of a community-wide atmosphere of intolerance.
b. Remedies. None of the discriminatory events described in the survey
could be remedied by the proposed legislation. And, of course, the cited
violent acts would be prosecuted under existing State criminal statutes.
The Focus Groups & Personal Interviews, undertaken at homosexual-
transgender activist headquarters, recorded the SUBJECTIVE anecdotes of 65
people.
The following are the applicable findings:
9 Of the 30 enumerated incidents (each a case history), 16 might be prevented
or remedied by the proposed legislation. There are also an unrecorded
number of bathroom disputes and school-related bulling events that might be
remedied. Also see Footnote 14, regarding one of the 16 events.
9 The remaining 14 incidents, plus an unrecorded number of beatings, could
NOT be remedied by the new protected-class legislation. The beatings
would, of course, be addressed by existing State criminal statutes, not by this
City ordinance modification.
9 The researchers did not bracket the time-frame for the historical narratives.
So, the 16 relevant events could have occurred over the lifetimes of the 65
aggrieved participants, or within all of their collective adult years, or over the
past 5 years (as was the practice in the written-survey phase of the study).
This vital detail is entirely unknown, and its importance may not have
been recognized by the JCCI researchers. However, if the reporting period
is 5 years (as in the written-survey phase), then ONE victim might expect to
experience a legally-prohibited incident ONCE every 20.4 years, on average

14. One home-purchase incident may be remedied by a 2012 HUD rule related to the Fair Housing
Act, titled Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender
Identity, see http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=12lgbtfinalrule.pdf and
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/LGBT_Housing_Discrimination.
Page 11 of 39
(see methodology in Footnote 15). This is an insufficient basis for legislating
inequitable special rights and for creating a protected class that clearly does
not need protecting.
Conclusions:
a. Frequency. 16 relevant incidents, distributed over 65 aggrieved people is
only ONE incident for every 4 people. And, if all incidents took place over 5
years, the incidence rate is ONE event per person every 20.4 years. These
numbers debunk the proposed law; they do not establish sufficient offense-
frequency to merit corrective legislation.
Further, if 30 events are the only ones worthy of reporting, then more
than half of focus-group participants had no notable grievance to report.
Keep in mind that each of the 30 chronicled events is an historic account of a
specific case, not a synopsis of multiple discriminatory incidents.
b. Flawed Research. This research effort was not of the quality of the UNF
effort. There is a deep-seated design bias: All of the aggrieved were
recruited with the help of homosexual-transgender activists, and they gave
their testimony under the auspices of (or within) activist headquarters, and
under the watchful eye of activists (Footnote 16). So, overstatement is
encouraged, and, of course, objective verification of the narratives is
impossible.
c. Extrapolation. Such stories cannot be extrapolated to the wider community.
The sample size is small, and the severity of each event is not quantified.
Commentary: Subjective anecdotes are ineffective forecasters. The interviews
took place in environments (activist headquarters) in which tales, sympathetic to
the LGBT movement, might be tacitly encouraged and embellished.
Thus, this JCCI research is not objective proof of extensive abuse, nor
even subjective proof of it. It fails to substantiate significant community-wide
discrimination. The study is a faulty foundation for such a far-reaching law.
It would be inequitable governance to create Special Legal Rights and a
Protected Class, based solely on emotion, unverifiable anecdotes, and such
limited evidence of discrimination, as that presented in these study reports.

15. The event interval per person equals the person-year total (65p x 5yr), divided by the total number
of incidents during the 5 years (16 events); thus (65p x 5yr) / 16 events = 20.4 years / incident.
16. The JCCI report, page 3, tells of the interview settings: JCCI was grateful . . . for local partners at
PFLAG (Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays), JASMYN (Jacksonville Area Sexual
Minority Youth Network), COE (Calendar of Events), Christ Church of Peace, Bridging Out
Jacksonville, and others in helping build spaces of trust for the conversations to occur.
Page 12 of 39
3. Cities Reject Special Rights
More communities and states have rejected these special legal rights,
than have adopted them (details below). Special rights advocates hope you will
believe their inevitability ploy and consequently abandon your principles.
Numerous US cities have rejected anti-discrimination ordinances
Jacksonville certainly would not be alone. The reasoning of other city councils
is contained in the journal articles below (see the section: Cities Reject Special
Sexual Orientation Legislation, below).
Throughout the United States voters oppose local council members who
enact such legislation. In 20 instances (cited below) voter ballot initiatives have
reversed the gender identity statutes of city councils at great local and state
government expense.
Please refer to the statute tabulation near the end of this document. The
BLUE cells identify laws reversed by public referendum.
Table of Contents
X Intervention by the State
X Cities Reject Special Sexual Orientation Legislation
X Citizen Referenda Reject Special Sexual Orientation Legislation
X Intervention by the State
1HEUDVND$WWQ\*HQHUDO%UXQLQJWDNHVRQ
2PDKDVJD\ULJKWVRUGLQDQFH
By Juan Perez Jr. | World-Herald | Friday May 4, 2012 |
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120504/NEWS01/120509871
The Omaha City Councils decision to grant gay and transgender residents legal protection
from discrimination was improper, state Attorney General Jon Brunings office said Friday.
In a legal opinion, Bruning said state law does not grant cities the authority to create new
protected classes. The opinion stems from a request for review from State Sen. Beau
McCoy of Omaha and groups such as the Nebraska Family Council. McCoy introduced a
proposal this past legislative session that would explicitly bar cities from creating their own
protected classes.
Fridays legal opinion would not overturn the councils amendments to anti-discrimination
laws, City Attorney Paul Kratz said. The city disagrees with the attorney generals opinion.
Page 13 of 39
The opinion will provide ammunition to private groups opposed to the law and seeking to
have it overturned in court or at the ballot box.
I think Omaha is in a very vulnerable position for lawsuits if they try to enforce their law, said
Al Riskowski, head of the Nebraska Family Council.
Council member Ben Gray, who led the successful effort to add protections for gay and
transgender residents, said Friday he had no immediate comment and referred questions to
the City Attorneys office.
As Omaha officials scrutinize the attorney generals opinion, Brunings words are also likely to
factor into discussions at Mondays Lincoln City Council meeting.
A public hearing is scheduled at 3 p.m. Monday on a Lincoln proposal to amend that citys
anti-bias laws to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes.
The law already provides protection from discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion
and disabilities. Lincolns religious organizations would be exempt from complying with
regulations regarding sexual orientation.
Lincolns measure is modeled after the Omahas recent amendments to its anti-discrimination
ordinances. However, Brunings opinion said, such an amendment indisputably requires a
vote of the people.
Even if one discounts the analysis that follows in this opinion, it remains the case that such
an expansion at the city level must be pursuant to an amendment to a citys charter, which
requires voter approval, the opinion says.
Ron Brown, an assistant Husker football coach who opposed the Omaha measure during a
public hearing, said he was praying about whether to speak against the Lincoln proposal.
Browns testimony generated praise as well as criticism. Gray plans to testify in support of
the measure.
Council member Jean Stothert, who voted against Omahas measure, said Friday the city has
three options.
Repeal the ordinance, put it to a vote of the people or do nothing and wait to get sued, she
said.
Instead, Stothert said, Omaha should fall back on a council-approved resolution in which the
council pledges to work with city business and community leaders to promote workplaces that
promote respect and eliminate any workplace discrimination.
The City Council should encourage all Omaha businesses to develop their own anti-
discrimination policy, she said. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already gives
everyone equal protection under the law.
Page 14 of 39
3URSRVHGELOOZRXOGQXOOLI\0LVVRXODDQWL
GLVFULPLQDWLRQRUGLQDQFH
Keila Szpaller | missoulian.com | Friday, January 21, 2011 keila.szpaller@missoulian.com
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_bc70eaa2-251b-11e0-b5b3-001cc4c002e0.html
Supporters of Missoula's anti-discrimination ordinance are bracing for a possible attack from
the Montana Legislature.
A bill - still being drafted - could nullify the local law that protects people from being fired from
jobs or kicked out of homes because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Missoula City Council members Stacy Rye and Dave Strohmaier said many people are
watching to see if the draft emerges, and if it does, they stand ready to defend local control
and fend off infringements on the ordinance.
"At that point, they should look for a fight on their hands," Strohmaier said Thursday. Said
Rye: "We spent a lot of time on that in Missoula. A lot of people in Missoula love that
ordinance."
Rye and Strohmaier sponsored the local law, the first in Montana to protect people who are
gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender from employment and housing discrimination. The
pending bill reportedly would bar other communities in the state from adopting similar laws -
and invalidate the one in Missoula.
According to the Legislative Services Division, the bill being requested by Rep. Kristin
Hansen, R-Havre, aims to bar local governments from enacting anti-discrimination statutes
that contain provisions in them that are not contained in state statutes. Sexual orientation is
not included in state statutes.
Hansen did not return calls for comment. Dallas Erickson, though, a longtime morality
crusader from Stevensville, said several groups including his HOME - Help Our Moral
Environment - see the need for such a bill.
He said he did not have permission to share the name of the person who requested Hansen
carry the legislation, and since a draft isn't yet available, he noted it's difficult to talk about the
bill.
But Erickson, who fought the Missoula ordinance, said people who are gay want to "legitimize
deviate sexual conduct" so the schools will teach homosexual sex and so gay people can
marry. He opposes such efforts.
"They want to legitimize it and make it on par with normal sexuality the way we were created,"
Erickson said. He and Tei Nash led the opposition to the Missoula ordinance, but never got a
Page 15 of 39
petition off the ground. They also lost a court fight to force the matter on the ballot for a vote
by the people.
Erickson said the courts threw up roadblocks that "were all misinterpretations of the law," and
he is disappointed in the Missoula courts system. "There's corruption at the lowest level to
the highest level."
The Montana Human Rights Network led the campaign here for the anti-discrimination
ordinance. Network organizer and lobbyist Jamee Greer said supporters are patiently waiting
to see a bill draft and aren't surprised they may have to defend the civil rights win in Missoula.
"We know that this was a hard-fought victory by the people of Missoula. There were
hundreds of volunteer hours put into this campaign, which resulted in a 10-2 decision and
demonstrated broad community support," Greer said.
Other communities are discussing similar ordinances, so the organization isn't only on the
defense. It's also forging ahead to establish similar protections elsewhere.
"The Human Rights Network is going to work to prevent this ordinance from being
overturned. We're also going to work to support other communities that want to see similar
fair and inclusive policies in their cities as well," he said.
Councilman Strohmaier said he's heard from people in some of those communities who look
to Missoula for leadership. A reversal would ripple statewide and be a stain against
Montana's reputation, he said.
"I absolutely do not think that Montanans want to be known as a state that's occupied by folks
who do not value civil rights and equality for all of our citizens. So again, whether it's
intended or not, the consequences would be a significant black eye for the state of Montana,"
Strohmaier said.
Rye said it's also an ironic departure from the GOP's mantra of local control "and no
meddling." If a hearing ends up happening, she said she'll be in Helena to testify. Others,
too, are closely following. Cynthia Wolken, an executive board member of the Missoula
County Democrats, sent an e-mail to the group this week noting the need to alert people -
and counties - to the possible legislation.
"Obviously, there are more questions than answers at this point regarding the substance,
breadth and legality of the bill," Wolken wrote in part. She also recommended counties pay
close attention. "Since this will restrict all counties from similar ordinances, I would strongly
urge the county chairs to put this on their conference call agenda."
It isn't clear when a draft will be available, but the bill isn't at the head of the line, according to
Legislative Services. Also among the list of human rights bills being drawn up this year is
one to "protect sexual orientation and gender identity and expression."
Page 16 of 39
7HQQHVVHH3DVVHV%LOOWR9RLG1DVKYLOOH
$QWL'LVFULPLQDWLRQ2UGLQDQFH
by Steve Williams May 23, 2011 http://www.care2.com/causes/tennessee-legislature-
advances-bill-nullifying-new-nashville-lgbt-nondiscrimination-law.html
In response to a Nashville-Davidson County metropolitan government ordinance mandating
that companies wanting to do business with the city must not discriminate on the basis of
gender identity or sexual orientation, the Tennessee Legislature last week passed a bill that
nullified the ordinance by making it illegal for local jurisdictions to exceed state law state
law does not include sexual orientation or gender identity protections.
The Senate passed the bill 19-8, while the House, which had already approved the bill once,
voted 70-26 last week to approve an amendment to change the language but not the
substance of the bill. The senate amendment added a severability clause designed to shore
up the bill under a court challenge.
The reconciled SB 632/HB 600 now heads to the desk of Republican governor Bill Haslam.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), together with a broad range of businesses, condemned
the Legislatures approval of the bill.
From the HRC website:
This bill is not only discriminatory in nature, but also goes against the old Republican value
that whats good for business is good for the country, said HRC President Joe Solmonese.
The fair-minded people of the Volunteer state are above anti-LGBT discrimination and so are
the major businesses that call Tennessee home. We are happy to have these corporations
join us in the call for fairness.
Tennessee-based major corporations have made the following public statements in
opposition to SB 632/HB 600:
Alcoa:
Alcoa provides equal employment opportunity without discrimination and supports state and
local legislation protecting the rights of all community members. We do not agree with the
chamber on this issue and would ask that the governor veto the bill.
FedEx:
FedEx values and promotes the unique contributions, perspectives, and differences of our
team members worldwide. FedEx does not tolerate discrimination of any kind, and is
committed to diversity and inclusion in the workplace. FedEx did not lobby for SB632/HB600
it is our policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
While FedEx is a member of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce, we do not support every
position proposed by the Chamber.
Page 17 of 39
AT&T:
AT&T does not support any laws or efforts that are discriminatory. AT&T does support the
principals of ensuring that state and local laws are consistent, which is the stated purpose of
HB 600/SB 632. However, the bill has become implicated in efforts to erode the rights of the
gay community, which we do not support. AT&T has a long history and longstanding
commitment to diversity and inclusion, and its policies address diversity in areas including
race, creed, religion, sex, and particularly sexual orientation. In fact, Diversity Inc. has
ranked AT&T in its Top 10 Companies for LGBT employees, and we were honored to be
recognized as one of the 2010 Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality by the Human Rights
Campaign Foundation. We are proud of our commitment to this community.
The state senate also passed a bill Friday that would make it illegal for teachers to mention
homosexuality in K through 8 schools. The bill, known as the Dont Say Gay bill, has been
criticized for the chilling effect it could have on combating anti-LGBT bullying. Read more on
that here.
X Cities Reject Special Sexual Orientation Legislation
0DQKDWWDQFRXQFLOUHSHDOVRUGLQDQFH
By The Associated Press May 4, 2011 http://cjonline.com/node/99029MANHATTAN The
Manhattan City Commission has voted to repeal a controversial ordinance that added sexual
orientation and a new definition of gender identity to its anti-discrimination policy.
The vote Tuesday was 3-2 and a second reading must be approved before the ordinance is
officially repealed.
The previous commission had passed the ordinance in February, making Manhattan the
second city in the state to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
But new council members were elected in April and opponents of the ordinance continued to
push for its repeal.
A large crowd attended Tuesdays meeting, with both supporters and opponents speaking
before the vote.
$QRWKHUVWDWHERDUGUHMHFWVVH[XDO
RULHQWDWLRQFKDQJH
By NANCY HICKS, nhicks@journalstar.com JournalStar.com | Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010
http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_25059330-8623-11df-9e55-
001cc4c03286.html
Page 18 of 39
What is the controversy?
The Nebraska Catholic Conference has objected to anti-discrimination clauses
prohibiting discrimination based on "sexual orientation," that were part of proposed
rules for three counseling-related state licensing boards: The Board of Psychology, the
Mental Health Practice Board and the Alcohol and Drug Counseling Board.
The conference, represented by Jim Cunningham, wanted sexual orientation removed
from the list, or it wanted rules to include a "conscience clause" that would allow
counselors to stop treatment and refuse to refer patients if they have moral objections.
The example given most often is a patient who comes in for depression, but later
decides she wants help strengthening a homosexual relationship.
A therapist who believes same-sex relationships are morally wrong may not want to
provide this kind of counseling and may feel it is immoral even to refer the client for
relationship counseling.
The state board overseeing Nebraska's mental health counselors has decided to live with its
current rules, rather than compromise on an ethics code relating to sexual orientation.
That makes two licensing groups unwilling to compromise with the Nebraska Catholic
Conference on the sexual orientation issue -- despite assurances from the state's chief
medical officer she will delay rule proposals until a compromise is reached.
Last month, the state Board of Health approved rules from the Board of Psychologists that
doesn't include compromise language. This week, the Mental Health Practice Board rejected
compromise language and agreed unanimously to seek a public hearing on proposed rules
without the compromise.
The Mental Health Practice Board took the action knowing it would mean further delay for the
group's proposed rule changes.
The Nebraska Catholic Conference and other conservative counselors and psychologists
want rules to include relief when professionals have religious or moral objections. The issue
has focused on ethics rules that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The
conference says counselors should not be required to provide relationship-counseling for
same-sex couples when they believe such relationship are immoral.
National professional association codes allow professionals to refrain from counseling but
require them to refer clients to someone else for the work. Moral clause supporters say
referring a patient to help repair a same-sex relationship would also be morally objectionable.
Opposition to the compromise has only grown since the issue first arose two years ago, said
John Danforth, chairman of the Mental Health Practice Board.
Page 19 of 39
The board is interested in finding language acceptable to all parties but there hasn't been an
acceptable proposal yet, he said. Even though the board would like to update its rules, there
is a set of regulations in place for governing the professional counselors, said Danforth.
"Getting the new regulations right is the most important thing," he said.
Proposed rule changes for both boards have been delayed for more than two years because
of the dispute.
And they will likely be delayed even longer since Dr. Joann Schafer, who must approve
public hearings on rules and rule proposals, has said she wants compromise.
Opponents to the compromise have said Schafer is representing Gov. Dave Heineman's
stance on the issue.
9RWHUVUHMHFWVH[XDORULHQWDWLRQLQLWLDWLYH
April 5th, 2012 http://www.adn.com/2012/04/03/2406275/voters-reject-gay-rights-
initiative.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/prop-5-anchorage-alaska-
vote_n_1403784.html
Anchorage voters rejected a proposed ordinance to add legal protections for gay, lesbian and
transgender people in a chaotic municipal election fraught with ballot shortages and high
voter turnout in many precincts.
With more than 90 percent of the precincts reporting late Tuesday, 58 percent of voters had
voted against Proposition 5, the equal rights ordinance that was far and away the most
controversial and emotional component of this spring's election.
As of late Tuesday, neither side was claiming victory nor conceding defeat. The main group
opposing the measure was silent, and its leader did not appear at Election Central at the
Dena'ina Center or issue any kind of written statement.
Trevor Storrs, spokesman for the One Anchorage campaign, which advocated for passage of
the measure, said it was too early to judge anything.
"We have complete faith in the electoral process, and the clerk's office needs to be the one to
evaluate the situation," Storrs said. That would be his only comment, he said, because "we
don't want to make any assumptions or put out any mistruths."
"We're proud of a big turnout," he said.
An unexpectedly high turnout, with some polling places running out of ballots, resulted in a
large number of votes that might be on "questioned" ballots, which have to be counted by
hand. The final results may be days or longer away, said municipal clerk Barbara
Gruenstein.
Page 20 of 39
Reports began circulating late in the day Tuesday that some precincts were running out of
ballots because of heavy turnout. By 7 p.m. -- an hour before polls were to close -- lines
were long at many polling places and extra ballots were being rushed to precincts that had
run out
Jim Minnery, the leader of Vote No On Prop. 5, said that he had sent out an alert email and
Facebook message saying, incorrectly, that people could register and vote on election day.
The information was wrong and a miscommunication with a clerk's office worker, he said. It
wasn't immediately clear how much of an effect that had on the turnout.
Polling places reported going through all of their ballots and then the back-up sample ballots
provided as a ''Plan B.' Officials at one Eagle River precinct even moved on to ''Plan C'' by
photocopying sample ballots on Alpenglow Elementary School office copier.
Some said they watched people give up and leave before replacement ballots, which officials
said would have to be counted manually and would be considered "questioned ballots," were
delivered. Minnery did not respond to repeated phone calls Tuesday night.
Prop. 5 was the third attempt by advocates here to outlaw discrimination against gay, lesbian
and transgender people since the city's charter took effect in 1975, but Tuesday was the first
time the issue had been voted on in a municipal election, according to supporters from the
One Anchorage campaign. The Anchorage Equal Rights Ordinance would have amended
Anchorage's Title 5 non-discrimination code. The effort to pass it started in December 2011
when the One Anchorage campaign collected the signatures of 13,515 registered voters to
place the initiative on the ballot.
The group was co-chaired by former Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles and former Republican
gubernatorial candidate and state Sen. Arliss Sturgulewski.
The citizen-led ballot effort came after a similar ordinance passed the Anchorage Assembly in
2009 but was then vetoed by Mayor Dan Sullivan, who said he didn't believe that
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was a problem in the city.
Sullivan has since said he believes a ballot initiative is an appropriate approach because it
allows citizens to weigh in on the initiative directly. A direct-to-ballot approach is an unusual
route to anti-discrimination legislation on the municipal level, said Tony Wagner of the Human
Rights Campaign, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit.
"I don't know of any other municipality that has gone proactively to the ballot" for a non-
discrimination ordinance, he said.
Alaska is one of 14 states with no protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, Wagner said. Others include Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi and Alabama, he said.
The One Anchorage campaign argued that legal protections for gay, lesbian and transgender
residents were overdue and instances of discrimination demonstrated a need for the law.
Page 21 of 39
The campaign ran commercials using a variety of Anchorage residents supporting the
measure, as well as one ad that made history by being the first in the country to feature an
openly transgender person, the campaign said.
A group of clergy supporting the ordinance, Christians for Equality, was a key part of
organizing efforts, campaign spokesman Trevor Storrs said.
Opponents, campaigning as Vote No On Prop. 5, complained that the law was vague and
poorly written and would impinge on the religious freedom of residents opposed to
homosexuality. The proposition included an exemption from the law for churches and
religious organizations.
The Vote No group built its advertising campaigns on cartoon scenarios it said could happen
if the law passed. The One Anchorage campaign decried the ads' portrayal of transgender
people as demeaning.
The Vote No On Prop. 5 group also included a number of the city's most prominent
clergymen arguing against the proposition. The campaign sponsored a "pastor's briefing"
and encouraged church leaders to talk to their congregations about it, Minnery said.
Over the course of the campaign, One Anchorage raised about $350,000, while Vote No
raised about $95,000, according to documents filed this week with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission.
*RVKHQYRWHVDJDLQVWFKDQJLQJDQWL
GLVFULPLQDWLRQRUGLQDQFH
Goshen, IN Reporter: Brandon Lewis Brandon.Lewis@wndu.com, Sep 2, 2009
http://www.wndu.com/localnews/headlines/56677892.html
After more than 6 hours of debate, the Goshen City Council voted against a proposed anti-
discrimination ordinance in a 4-3 vote.
The Goshen [Indiana] City Council has turned down a controversial ordinance after six hours
of debate in front of a huge crowd. The council voted 4 to 3 against the ordinance that would
make it illegal to discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation.
Councilman and co-sponsor of the ordinance Chic Lantz switched his vote. According to our
news partners at the Elkhart Truth, he originally supported the ordinance in its first reading,
but now says he's changed his mind after looking at similar laws in other cities.
More than 500 people showed up to the meeting and most wanted to share their opinion on
the ordinance that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to a list of protected
Page 22 of 39
classes. Other classes already included are race, religion, color, sex, disability, national
origin and ancestry.
The council decided to hold the meeting at the high school instead of the regular meeting
room to accommodate for the large crowd.
It was standing room only inside the auditorium and some people were kept outside by the
fire marshal. Dozens of speakers explained their viewpoint and tried to sway the council.
"No one is being asked to change their beliefs, a group of citizens has stepped forward and
asked for your help. It is not likely you'll understand their experience, or possibly even
believe its true, unless you've somehow been personally affected," said one Goshen resident.
Some speakers discussed religious reasons for their stance on the law.
"This is an issue of morals, if we start telling people in our schools everything's okay, where
do we draw the line? I want to know where do we draw the line," said one resident who said
he talked with his pastor about the ordinance.
Other residents told very personal stories. "I am a man trapped inside a woman's body.
being different from the social norm has made my life very difficult for me in terms of finding a
job and a career. Some of this is my doing due to the fact I refuse to play a conformist game
so many of us were forced to play as we were growing up." said another Goshen resident
who identified himself as a transgender.
Some business owners also were worried about a potential economic impact of the ordinance
and possible litigation regarding the law.
"Please don't offer people another reason to do business outside of Goshen. Our economic
welfare has had enough setbacks as it is," said one business owner.
The speakers were generally split between the two sides. The council voted a little after 1
a.m. Wednesday morning.
&LWLHVVWLOOZUHVWOLQJZLWKLQFOXGLQJVH[XDO
RULHQWDWLRQLQDQWLGLVFULPLQDWLRQ
RUGLQDQFHV
By Jared Council | Sunday, April 8, 2012 | http://m.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/08/30pt-
hed1-10-inches-30pt-hed1-10-inches/
Page 23 of 39
EVANSVILLE When Henderson, Ky., City Commissioners voted to include sexual
orientation in the city's anti-discrimination ordinance in 1999, the amendment was repealed
18 months later by newly elected officials who ran on promises to do so.
"They felt the ordinance was contrary to their core beliefs," said Jeff Gregory, executive
director of the Henderson Human Relations Commission. He said the issue was so
controversial in the town of about 27,000 that his commission didn't take a stance on it.
Across the Ohio River 13 years later, a similar issue now sits before Vanderburgh County
Commissioners who heard a multitude of testimonies and received dozens of letters of
opposition, most of which are based on religious beliefs.
The next special meeting is at 3 p.m. today in Room 301 of the Civic Center. Vanderburgh
County Commissioner Stephen Melcher said a vote may come in late April.
Support for such an amendment particularly from the gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender community has also been expressed here, and the issue has been nothing
less than divisive in other Indiana cities where it has arisen.
"We've been working on this for several years," said Lonnie L. Douglas, executive director of
the South Bend, Ind., Human Rights Commission, noting his board's proposal for such an
amendment was voted down twice in recent years before being passed March 27.
Vanderburgh County's turn
Members of the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Human Relations Commission which
investigates allegations of discrimination in employment, housing and other areas have
also been considering adding sexual orientation and gender identity language to the city's
and county's anti-discrimination ordinances for years, top officials said.
It defines sexual orientation as male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality and
bisexuality, real or perceived, by orientation or practice.
It defines gender identity as a person's actual or perceived gender-related attributes, self-
image, appearance, expression or behavior, whether or not such characteristics differ from
those traditionally associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.
Adding such language to the books would, for the first time, allow people who feel they were
discriminated against for those reasons to file complaints.
The human relations commission has subpoena power for other complaint bases such as
race or sex but with sexual orientation and gender identity, the accused party's
participation is voluntary. If an employer declines to participate, for example, the
investigation is closed.
Evansville City Council members already added sexual orientation and gender identity (as
well as age and disability) to its ordinance after a unanimous vote on Nov. 28. It was initially
unopposed, but some residents called for its repeal in the weeks that followed.
Page 24 of 39
The human relations commission now looks to the county to do so, but opposition that's
surfaced since the city's decision has prompted a slow approach.
"We plan to have a couple public hearings and give it time to be vetted," Melcher said. In
addition to the two meetings where the amendment was read, County Commissioners had a
special public hearing on March 19. More than 150 people stood inside and outside the
chambers, and the division between proponents and opponents was noticeable.
Controversial everywhere
Henderson saw scores of people attend meetings for its so-called "fairness ordinance,"
Gregory said, and according to The Gleaner newspaper, 90 people spoke at the first hearing.
In February 2001 when the amendment was on agenda for repeal, The Gleaner reported, a
fairness supporter told city commissioners they were not Christians, but "hateful bigots."
A pastor in favor of the repeal responded, saying he didn't support hatred, but that
homosexuality is a sin.
The fall 1999 amendment and the 2001 repeal both passed by 3-2 votes. "We stayed
neutral," said Gregory. "We were either going to alienate one side or the other, so we
decided that we'd rather be disliked a little by both sides ."
Lafayette, Ind. which is about 60 miles northwest of Indianapolis saw similar contention
when its city council added sexual orientation language to its discrimination code in 1993,
Ron Campbell, a 41-year councilmember there said.
Campbell said the amendment was initiated by another councilmember whose son was gay.
The issue drew pastors from nearby cities; caused a council member to fear for her safety;
and prompted someone to send footage of a gay parade San Francisco, Calif., stating that
"this is what Lafayette would become."
"For us Midwesterners it was something difficult for us to view, quite honestly," Campbell said
about the footage. The one Republican and eight Democratic city council members in
Bloomington, Ind., voted unanimously to add sexual orientation language in 1993, but it
wasn't a smooth process.
"It was pretty controversial," said Barbara McKinney, the Human Rights Commission director
there, adding that one meeting lasted until about 2 a.m.
Surprisingly, she said, there was no controversy when gender identity language was added to
the ordinance in 2006.
A similar move in Fort Wayne, Ind. which had sexual orientation language since 2001
barely made it past the starting gate. Some city council members in Indiana's second largest
city attempted to introduce a gender identity amendment in 2010, but it was blocked with a 5-
4 vote.
Page 25 of 39
According to the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, one Council member who supported the
amendment said the emails he had received on the issue showed a "fair amount a
shocking and surprising amount of bigotry behind this."
South Bend, a city of approximately 101,000, had neither sexual orientation nor gender
identity language in its code before March 27. But after a five-hour hearing that night, city
council members voted 6-3 to add such protections. The same revisions were voted down by
one vote in 2006 and 2010.
Douglas's commission, like the Evansville-Vanderburgh County commission, actively
advocated its passage. But unlike the commission here, South Bend's has cease-and-desist
and subpoena powers as it relates to sexual-orientation and gender-identity cases.
"I don't know," said Douglas without prompt about whether homosexuality is genetic or
chosen. "All I care about is that you get the same opportunities in employment, public
accommodation, housing and education."
But Tippecanoe County Human Relations Commission members are taking a reserved
approach. The county got its sexual orientation language when its human relations board
formed in 2001 and adopted the Lafayette discrimination ordinance.
But there's no discussion on adding gender identity language. "There probably would be a lot
of concern, especially on the county level," human relations commission chairman Mike
Piggott said.
2NODKRPD&LWLHV6K\$ZD\)URP$QWL
'LVFULPLQDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
by Holly Wall, News Editor | Nov2011 | http://thislandpress.com/roundups/cities-shy-away-
from-anti-discrimination-measures/
Both Oklahoma City and Norman have decided against adding sexual orientation to their
cities non-discrimination policiesfor now anyway.
The Oklahoman reported recently that the Oklahoma City Council decided to defer voting on
such a measure, introduced by Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid, to Nov. 15.
The council elected to vote Nov. 15 because all of the councilors, as well as Mayor Mick
Cornett, are expected to be in attendance at the meeting on that date, and because that
would provide ample time to study the issue.
The citys equal employment opportunity ordinance now lists only classes protected by
federal and state law, like gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, disability and political
Page 26 of 39
affiliation, The Oklahoman reported. Discrimination based upon sexual orientation is not
explicitly prohibited federally or in Oklahoma.
Shadid and Ward 8 Councilman Pat Ryan were the only two councilors to voice immediate
support for the measure, The Oklahoman reported. Ward 3s Larry McAtee and Ward 5s
David Greenwell want to study the issue further before deciding, and Ward 7s Skip Kelly
said he didnt think the city needs to make a change unless empirical data shows it should.
Oklahoma County has already adopted a similar measure.
Normans Human Rights Commission used Monday evening to explore the idea of adding
sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes enumerated in Normans
city personnel manual, but its efforts were shot down by Assistant City Attorney Rickey J.
Knighton II, the Norman Transcript reported.
Knighton said enumerating yet another class of persons in the employee manual would
not necessarily provide legal protection under the law, the Transcript reported.
Its not really clear how much legal protection the courts provide (from inclusion in the
personnel manual), Knighton said. The remedy set forth in the personnel manual is
arbitration. Knighton instead suggested wording the policy in a way to prohibit all
discrimination and provide that all opportunities be merit-based.
Toby Jenkins, executive director of Oklahomans for Equality, Tulsas LGBT advocacy
organization, dismissed the claim that such a measure wouldnt be upheld in courts.
Jenkins pointed out that federal employees, including judges in the U.S. District Court, where
workplace discrimination cases are tried, are protected from discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
Do you really think a judge is going to rule against the municipalitys measure when hes
covered by the same protections? Jenkins said.
Advocates for the policy change in Norman pointed to successful measures passed in Tulsa
and Vinita. In June of 2010, the Tulsa City Council, by a vote of 6-3, approved a measure co-
sponsored by District 9 Councilor G.T. Bynum and District 4 Councilor Maria Barnes to add
sexual orientation to the City of Tulsas list of protected classes.
Jenkins said 65 percent of employees in Tulsa are protected from workplace discrimination
based on sexual orientationbut not because of the City of Tulsa. Rather, its because the
citys largest employers have included such provisions in their policy manuals.
But, Tulsa is significant in that its the largest metropolitan area in a six-hour radius to include
sexual orientation in its list of protected classes.
Though there is no federal law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would provide such protection, has been
introduced in every Congress, except the 109
th
, since 1994, though it has yet to be passed.
Page 27 of 39
Obama has expressed support of the bill, and Jenkins says, Everyone knows its just a
matter of time before it becomes a federal law.
The Tulsa Human Rights Commission first recommended sexual orientation be added to the
citys non-discrimination policy in 1975. The recommendation was never acted upon, and for
most of the next 35 years it peeked out from obscurity only occasionally, the Tulsa World
reported.
Jenkins was present when the Tulsa City Council voted the measure into effect and
remembers being pleasantly surprised at how easily it passed. It was almost a non-event,
he said. It was over in about 13 seconds. I remember sitting there thinking, We waited 35
years for this?
Omaha City CounciI Rejects LGBT Anti-
Discrimination Ordinance
Omaha, Nebraska 10/26/2010 http://www.towleroad.com/2010/10/omaha-city-council-rejects-
lgbt-anti-discrimination-ordinance.html
"The measure failed on a 3-3 vote. Councilman Franklin Thompson, who has called for a
public vote on the issue, abstained. Councilmen Ben Gray, Pete Festersen and Chris Jerram
voted in favor of the ordinance; Jean Stothert, Garry Gernandt and Thomas Mulligan were
opposed.
Gray, author of the ordinance, proposed that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender
people be a protected class under city code protection they don't currently have under
state or federal law. He amended the proposal to exclude religious organizations, but
members of the Omaha business community also opposed the ordinance. The council held a
public hearing Tuesday on Thompson's proposal to put the issue to a public vote, in the form
of an amendment to the City Charter.
The vote on Thompson's measure is expected next week...Gray's ordinance would allow
homosexual and transgender residents who believe they have been fired or suffered other
workplace discrimination, or have been refused service at a restaurant, hotel or other place
that serves the public, to file a complaint with Omaha's Human Rights and Relations
Department, Assistant City Attorney Bernard in den Bosch has said."
Jackson Mich City CounciI rejects anti-
discrimination ordinance 5-2
Page 28 of 39
By Todd A. Heywood | 08.12.09 | http://michiganmessenger.com/24706/jackson-city-council-
rejects-anti-discrimination-ordinance-5-2
Jackson Mayor Jerry Ludwig runs Tuesday's council meeting where the council rejected an
anti-discrimination ordinance.
JACKSON In a 5-2 vote, the city council on Tuesday night rejected a controversial anti-
discrimination ordinance aimed at curbing bias on the basis of sexual orientation, HIV status
or gender identity and expression among other categories, setting the stage for what could be
an ugly public ballot battle.
City Council members Kenneth Glasier, from the Fourth Ward, and Carl Breeding from the
First Ward, voted not to reject the ordinance. The remaining five members of the council
voted to reject the ordinance based on a motion made by Daniel Greer, the Third Ward
representative, and seconded by Robert Howe of the Second Ward.
I feel like we are in Washington. Were talking about an issue, but were not dealing with it,
Mayor Jerry Ludwig said before casting a vote to reject the ordinance. Were too small for
that. Sure we have a problem. Anyone who would deny that would be a liar. But its not a
problem to the extent where it will affect the business or housing market.
The move came after nearly 45 minutes of testimony about the ordinance. About 35 people
spoke, with the majority of those speaking in opposition to the ordinance living outside the
city, and the majority of those speaking in favor being Jackson residents.
Bryan Ramsey, who owns RTD Manufacturing in the city but lives in Grass Lake, said his
concern was about the impact of the ordinance on businesses. Under the ordinance, a
business found guilty of violating the ordinance is subject to a fine of $500 a day, as well as
back wages and legal fees.
We have agencies trying to attract businesses to Jackson, Ramsey told council members.
I know if this ordinance troubles me, I am sure it bothers some of those considering a move
to Jackson.
Stephen Artz, RTDs vice president, also spoke against the ordinance citing cost concerns for
businesses. But when asked if he was aware that many manufacturing companies in the
United States, including the Big Three automakers, protected employees from discrimination
based on sexual orientation, Artz said, No, Im not.
Activists pushing the ordinance said they were ready to push the issue in a public ballot
initiative.
Its an option I am not thrilled about, but its something that is still on the table, said Kathleen
Conley, who chairs the Human Relations Commission. She said that the commission would
meet to discuss how to move forward, and said some options included working with council
members to pass an ordinance which would only apply to city employees, or putting the issue
on the ballot.
Page 29 of 39
Julie Nemecek, co-director of Michigan Equality, said the HRC would only need about 400
signatures of Jackson voters to put the issue to a vote.
&HGDU&LW\8WDK&RXQFLO5HMHFWV$QWL
'LVFULPLQDWLRQ2UGLQDQFH
By Sarah Webber | April 8, 2011 | http://www.suunews.com/news/2011/apr/07/city-council-
rejects-anti-discrimination-ordinance/
The Queer-Straight Alliance failed to convince the Cedar City Council to reconsider
transforming an anti-discrimination resolution to an ordinance that would afford legal
protection from sexual orientation and gender-based discrimination.
The council voted against passing the ordinance 4-1 in October, instead passing a non-
enforceable resolution forbidding sexual orientation-based discrimination in housing and
employment.
Councilor John Westwood said that he did not support reconsidering the resolution because
the council had only recently passed the resolution.
... I think youll be back time and again, Westwood said. In fact I think we should consider
rescinding the resolution that was made.
Councilor Nina Barnes said that as a member of SUU Board of Trustees she supported and
saw a need for the ordinance on campus, but as a city councilor she had to honor the Cedar
City residents who did not feel comfortable with the proposed ordinance.
Councilor Georgia Beth Thompson said university students are part of the community and
with more than 7,000 students living off campus, and merely a campus ordinance would not
protect all students.
The university is part of the community, Thompson said, Its not a little isolated island.
When we say the laws on campus but not elsewhere, thats an anomaly because the
university is much more integrated in the community than that.
SUUSA passed an new anti-discrimination resolution that affirmed that the entire Cedar City
community should be allowed protection against sexual orientation-based discrimination.
The Director of Equality Utah Brandie Balken came to the city council meeting to discuss the
reconsideration of an anti-discrimination ordinance.
Five other cities in Utah have passed similar anti-discrimination ordinances in recent months,
including Murray, Moab and Ogden, Balken said.
Page 30 of 39
She said the ordinance would not prevent LDS standards from being enforced in housing,
give special rights to gays, allow for any private right to lawsuit or promote a gay lifestyle.
Balken explained measures taken if the proposed ordinance is violated, There is an
investigation to see if the complaint has merit, there is a mediation or an attempt to discuss
the incident, and if that is not found to be effective there is an assessment of a fine, Balken
said.
Councilor Steve Wood declined meeting with members of the Queer-Straight Alliance outside
council meetings to discuss the issue. What you say to me in front of a council is what I
think is important that I hear and it should be transparent, in a public meeting, Wood said.
X Citizen Referenda Reject Special Sexual Orientation
Legislation
List of US baIIot initiatives to repeaI LGBT
anti-discrimination Iaws
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_ballot_initiatives_to_repeal_LGBT_anti-
discrimination_laws
Opponents of Colorado's Amendment 2 at a rally sponsored by the National Organization for
Women
Jurisdictions in the United States began outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation in 1972, when East Lansing, Michigan passed an ordinance forbidding
discrimination based on "affectional or sexual preference".
[1]
In response, opponents began
organizing campaigns to place measures on their local ballots to repeal these anti-
discrimination laws. The repeal movement found a national spokesperson in Anita Bryant,
who helped found and served as president of Save Our Children. Save Our Children
organized in Florida in 1977 in response to the passage by the Dade County Commission of
an anti-discrimination ordinance.
Bryant's campaign was successful; the Miami-Dade ordinance was repealed by a greater
than two-to-one margin. Repeal campaigns, building on this success, spread nationally and
several other ordinances were repealed. In California in 1978, conservative state senator
John Briggs sponsored Proposition 6, which would have barred gay and lesbian people from
working in a public school. The defeat of this measure, and of an ordinance repeal measure
in Seattle, Washington the same day, stalled the momentum of the repeal forces.
The mid-1980s and early 1990s saw a resurgence in ballot initiatives, culminating in
proposed state constitutional amendments in Oregon and Colorado not only to repeal existing
anti-discrimination ordinances but to proactively prohibit the state and any local unit of
Page 31 of 39
government within the state from ever passing such an ordinance. Oregon's Measure 9,
sponsored by the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA), failed, but Colorado's Amendment 2
passed. Amendment 2 was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in
its 1996 Romer v. Evans decision. Oregon and two other states, Idaho and Maine, had
initiatives between the passage of Amendment 2 and the Court decision; all three were
defeated but many municipalities within Oregon passed local measures.
As the question of same-sex marriage has risen to greater prominence, opponents of such
marriages have turned their attention to passing constitutional amendments barring individual
states from legalizing same-sex marriages or recognizing such marriages performed in other
jurisdictions. These amendments are listed here. Before the marriage issue arose, some
jurisdictions had begun providing limited rights and benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
These ordinances also became targets of repeal efforts, with repeal supporters meeting with
less success.
Contents
1 Ballot initiatives
2 Oregon after Measure 9
3 Domestic partnership repeal initiatives
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
Ballot initiatives [the blue cells identify rejected Sexual Orientation
legislation]
Election
date
Locale Goal Outcome
1974
Boulder,
Colorado
Placed on the ballot by
the Boulder city council
after passage of a gay
rights ordinance met with
public outcry
Voters repealed the ordinance,
recalled a councilman who supported
it and defeated the mayor at the next
election. In 1987, a citizen's initiative
to ban discrimination was passed by
voters, the only such measure in the
country passed by popular
referendum.
[2]
June 7,
1977
Miami-Dade
County,
Florida
To repeal the county's
gay rights ordinance
Passed by a greater than two-to-one
margin.
[3]
April 25,
1978
St. Paul,
Minnesota
To repeal the city's gay
rights ordinance
Passed by a two-to-one margin.
[4]
May 9, Wichita, To repeal the city's gay Passed by a five-to-one margin.
[5]
Page 32 of 39
1978 Kansas rights ordinance
May 23,
1978
Eugene,
Oregon
rights ordinance
Passed.
[6]
California
Proposition 6, to bar gay
and lesbian people from
teaching in public schools
Defeated by a two-to-one margin.
[7]
November
7, 1978
Seattle,
Washington
rights ordinance
Defeated with 63% of the vote.
[8]
Santa Clara
County,
California
Passed.
[9]
June 3,
1980
San Jose,
California
rights ordinance
Passed.
[9]
1984
Duluth,
Minnesota
rights ordinance
Passed.
[10]
1986
Davis,
California
rights ordinance
Failed.
St. Paul,
Minnesota
To bar citizens from
repealing the city's gay
rights ordinance by
initiative
Failed.
[11]
November
8, 1988
Oregon
Measure 8, to revoke an
executive order barring
discrimination in the
executive branch
Passed with 53% of the vote.
[12]
Athens, Ohio
rights ordinance
Passed.
[13]
Irvine,
California
rights ordinance
Passed.
[13]
Concord,
California
rights ordinance
Passed.
[13]
November
7, 1989
Tacoma,
Washington
rights ordinance
Passed with 51% of the vote. A 1990
ballot initiative to restore the law was
rejected by over 70% of the
electorate.
[14]
May 21,
1991
Denver,
Colorado
rights ordinance
Failed.
[15]
November
5, 1991
St. Paul,
Minnesota
rights ordinance
Failed with 54% of the vote.
[16]
Portland,
Maine
rights law
[17]
November
3, 1992
Tampa, To repeal the city's gay Passed with almost 60% of the vote.
Page 33 of 39
Florida rights ordinance However, the Florida Supreme Court
later ruled that 462 signatures from
the initiative petition were invalid and
voided the repeal.
[18]
Colorado
Amendment 2, to repeal
all gay rights ordinances
within the state and to
prevent the state or any
political subdivision from
passing new gay rights
ordinances
Passed with 53.2% of the vote.
[19]
Later struck down by the United
States Supreme Court in Romer v.
Evans.
[20]
Oregon
Measure 9. "All
governments in Oregon
may not use their monies
or properties to promote,
encourage or facilitate
homosexuality,
pedophilia, sadism or
masochism. All levels of
government, including
public education systems,
must assist in setting a
standard for Oregon's
youth which recognizes
that these behaviors are
abnormal, wrong,
unnatural and perverse
and they are to be
discouraged and
avoided."
[21]
Cincinnati,
Ohio
Ballot Issue 3, to prevent
the city from enacting any
gay rights ordinances.
Passed with 67% of the vote. Despite
being worded almost identically to
Colorado's Amendment 2, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
measure as constitutional in 1997.
[22]
Cincinnati voters repealed Issue 3 in
2004.
[23]
Lewiston,
Maine
To repeal a recently
passed anti-discrimination
ordinance
Passed by more than a two-to-one
margin.
[24]
November
1994
Alachua
County,
Florida
1) To overturn the
existing gay rights law
2) To bar future
ordinances
Both passed with close to 60% of the
vote.
[25]
November
Oregon Measure 13, to forbid Defeated.
[26]
Page 34 of 39
state and local
governments from
passing anti-
discrimination ordinances
8, 1994
Idaho
Proposition 1, to forbid
state and local
governments from
passing anti-
Defeated by a 3,000 vote margin.
[27]
January 10,
1995
West Palm
Beach,
Florida
rights ordinance
Failed.
[28]
March 7,
1995
Tampa,
Florida
rights ordinance
Five days before the election a judge
threw out the referendum so the
votes were not tallied.
[29]
November
7, 1995
Maine
Question 1, to ban the
state and local
governments from
passing anti-
[30]
1996
Lansing,
Michigan
Two initiatives, both to
repeal the city's gay rights
ordinance
Both passed.
September
10, 2002
Miami-Dade
County,
Florida
Failed.
[31]
March 1,
2005
Topeka,
Kansas
To bar Topeka from
recognizing sexual
orientation as a protected
class for ten years
[32]
March 24,
2009
Gainesville,
Florida
Charter Amendment One,
to repeal the city's gay
rights ordinance
[33]
November
8, 2011
Traverse City,
Michigan
To repeal the anti-
discrimination ordinance
enacted in 2010.
Defeated by a two-to-one margin.
[34]
April 4,
2012
Anchorage,
Alaska
To repeal the anti-
discrimination ordinance
enacted in 2011.
Repealed by 58% of voters.
[35]
Oregon after Measure 9
After failing to pass Measure 9 in 1992, OCA (Oregon Citizens Alliance) turned its attention to
passing anti-discrimination bans at the county and municipal level. Couching the debate in
Page 35 of 39
terms of forbidding LGBT people from receiving so-called "special rights", OCA sought not
only to block ordinances in these communities but to bar them from spending money to
"promote homosexuality".
[36]
OCA was successful in passing over two dozen initiatives.
However, in 1993 the Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a law prohibiting local
governments from considering LGBT rights measures so the ordinances had no legal
force.
[37]
The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the state law in 1995.
[38]
Two weeks after the
United States Supreme Court ruled in Romer, OCA suspended its efforts for a third statewide
ballot initiative.
[39]
Election date Locale Outcome
Corvallis Failed with 63% voting against.
[40]
May 19, 1992
Springfield Passed with 55.4% of the vote.
[41]
May 18, 1993 Cornelius Passed.
[42]
Canby Passed.
[43]
Junction City
Passed by one vote.
[43][36]
The measure was later invalidated
by a court but a new initiative passed in March 1994.
[44]
Douglas
County
Passed.
[43]
Josephine
County
Passed.
[43]
Klamath
County
Passed.
[43]
June 29, 1993
Linn County Passed.
[43]
Creswell Passed.
[45]
Estacada Passed.
[45]
Grants Pass Passed.
[38]
Gresham Passed.
[38]
Lebanon Passed.
[45]
Medford Passed.
[45]
Molalla Passed.
[45]
Sweet Home Passed.
[45]
September 21,
1993
Jackson
County
Passed.
[45]
Keizer Passed with 55% of the vote.
[37]
November 9,
1993
Oregon City Passed with 53% of the vote.
[37]
Albany Passed.
[44]
Junction City Passed.
[44]
Turner Passed.
[44]
March 22,
1994
Marion
County
Passed.
[44]
Page 36 of 39
Cottage
Grove
Passed.
[38]
Gresham
Received a majority of the vote but not the 60% majority
required for passage.
[46]
Oakridge Passed.
[38]
Roseburg Passed.
[38]
May 17, 1994
Veneta Passed.
[38]
November 8,
1994
Lake County Passed.
[38]
Domestic partnership repeal initiatives
Election date Locale Outcome
November 6, 1990 Seattle, Washington Failed.
[14]
1991 San Francisco Failed.
[47]
May 7, 1994 Austin, Texas Repealed.
[48]
November 7, 1995 Northhampton, Massachusetts Repealed by a margin of 87 votes.
[30]
Notes:
1. ^ Faderman, p. 228
2. ^ Phelps, Timothy (1995-10-08). "Gay issues split Colorado cities". Eugene Register-
Guard (Newsday): p. 8A.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wUlWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G-
sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6547,1764809. Retrieved 2012-01-14.
3. ^ Rutledge, p. 108
5. ^ Rutledge, pp. 12223
6. ^ "Anita's Group Aims to Help Homosexuals". The Ocala (FL) Star-Banner (Associated
Press): p. 2B. 1978-06-05.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OdUTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xwUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5
317,1299969&dq=eugene-oregon+gay-rights. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
7. ^ Shilts, p. 250
9. ^
a b
"Income tax cut rejected by voters in California". The Kingman (AZ) Daily Miner
(Associated Press): p. A3. 1980-06-04.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PiALAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vFIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=69
83,3228938&dq=santa-clara-county+gay+ballot. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
10. ^ Vaid, p. 328
11. ^ "Tax-limit plans suffer setbacks". Eugene (OR) Register-Guard (Associated Press):
p. 9A. 1988-11-10.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cm0VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0eEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6
682,2311572&dq=st+paul+gay+ballot+-olympics. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
[dead link]
Page 37 of 39
12. ^ "Oregon Goes Democratic!". Ellensburg (WA) Daily Record (UPI): p. 11. 1988-11-09.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3dEPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=do8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5
659,5056098&dq=oregon+measure+8. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
[dead link]
13. ^
a b c
MacNamara, Mark (1989-11-09). "Losses alarm gay rights supporters". USA
Today: p. 3A.
14. ^
a b
George, Kathy; Scott Maier (1990-11-08). "Only Tacoma Fails to Back Gay
Rights". The Seattle Post-Intelligencer: p. B2.
http://www.seattlepi.com/archives/1990/9011080067.asp. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
15. ^ Keen and Goldberg, p. 6
16. ^ "Gay Rights Ordinance Survives Repeal Vote". St. Paul Pioneer-Press: p. 1A. 1991-
11-06. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-
search/we/Archives?p_product=PD&s_site=twincities&p_multi=SP&p_theme=realcitie
s&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-
0=0EB5DB483B206179&p_field_direct-
0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM.
Retrieved 2009-09-01.
17. ^ Scherberger, Tom (1992-11-05). "Blame spread for loss of gay rights". St.
Petersburg Times: p. 6B.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OPYNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wXoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=
4860,4863815&dq=tampa+gay+ballot+-olympics. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
18. ^ Murdoch and Price, p.425
19. ^ Murdoch and Price, p. 455
20. ^ Murdoch and Price, p. 475
21. ^ "Initiative, Referendum and Recall: 1988-1995". Oregon Blue Book. Oregon
Secretary of State. 4 November 2008.
http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/elections/elections21.htm. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
22. ^ Irwin, Julie (1998-10-14). "Law denying gay protection stands". The Cincinnati
Inquirer. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1998/10/14/loc_gayrights14.html. Retrieved
2009-08-30.
23. ^ Hrenchir, Tim (2005-02-24). "Legal battles followed passage". The Topeka Capital-
Journal. http://cjonline.com/stories/022405/loc_gayrights.shtml. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
24. ^ Egan, Timothy (1993-11-04). "The 1993 Elections: Propositions; Ballot Measures on
Term Limits and Crime Draw Wide Support". The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/us/1993-elections-propositions-ballot-measures-
term-limits-crime-draw-wide-support.html. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
25. ^ Terhune, Chad (1994-12-13). "Gainesville repeals gay resolution". The Ocala (FL)
Star-Banner (NYT Regional Newspapers): p. 2C.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19941213&id=KWhRAAAAIBAJ&
sjid=uQcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5305,2342781. Retrieved 2012-01-14.
26. ^ "Answer Is Still No To Ore. Anti-Gay-Rights Measure -- Bid To Legalize Physician-
Assisted Suicide Up In Air -- Around The Northwest". The Seattle Times (Times News
Service). 1994-11-08.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941109&slug=1940821.
27. ^ "Group revives anti-gay plan despite vote". The Deseret News (Associated Press):
p. A15. 1995-04-23.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ftERAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rewDAAAAIBAJ&pg=52
79,4982996&dq=idaho+gay-rights. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
[dead link]
Page 38 of 39
28. ^ Rosza, Lori (1995-01-11). "West Palm Beach Votes To Retain Gay-Rights Law". The
Seattle Times (Knight-Ridder News Service).
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950111&slug=2098993.
29. ^ "Surprise in Florida". The Advocate: p. 10. 1995-04-18.
http://books.google.com/books?id=AmMEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gb
s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved 2010-07-28.
30. ^
a b
Dunlap, David W (1995-11-12). "Gay Politicians And Issues Win Major Victories".
The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/us/gay-politicians-and-
issues-win-major-victories.html. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
31. ^ "Early Returns Show Miami-Area Voters Upheld Gay Rights Amendment". The
Miami Herald. 2002-09-11. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-
8787846_ITM. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
32. ^ Hrenchir, Tim; Barbara Hollingsworth and Cait Purinton (2005-03-02). "Gay rights
ban fails". The Topeka Capital-Journal.
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/030205/loc_gayrights.shtml. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
33. ^ "Gainesville keeps gay rights law". Miami Herald. 2009-03-24.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2009/03/gainesville-keeps-gay-rights-
law.html.
34. ^ "'Yes' wins big in TC non-discrimination vote". Travers City Record-Eagle. 2001-11-
08. http://record-eagle.com/2011election/x471037074/-Yes-wins-big-in-TC-non-
discrimination-vote.
35. ^ "Anti-discrimination bill results in Anchorage called into question over allegations of
voter fraud". Pink News. 2012-04-09. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/09/anti-
discrimination-bill-results-in-anchorage-called-into-question-over-allegations-of-voter-
fraud/.
36. ^
a b
Kidd, Joe (1993-07-27). "City officials put gay issue on fall ballot". Eugene
Register-Guard: p. 1C.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=t24VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZeoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=29
37,6191534&dq=ballot+oregon+gay. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
37. ^
a b c
"OCA gets ready to take its battle to 1994 ballots". Eugene (OR) Register-Guard
(Associated Press): p. 5C. 1993-11-11.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=I3EVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=g-
oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6248,2326847&dq=cottage+grove+ballot+gay. Retrieved 2009-08-
30.
38. ^
a b c d e f g h
Neville, Paul (1995-04-13). "Appeals court deals setback to gay rights
foes". Eugene (OR) Register-Guard: pp. 1A, 4A.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zHAVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7eoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2
905,3081538&dq=oakridge+ballot+gay. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
[dead link]
39. ^ Neville, Paul (1996-06-28). "Gay celebration spotlights victory in Supreme Court".
Eugene (OR) Register-Guard: p. 1C.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qXMVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JesDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2
806,7201873&dq=oregon+supreme+court+ballot+gay. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
[dead link]
40. ^ "A Blue-Collar Town Is a Gay-Rights Battleground". The New York Times: p. 35.
June 14, 1992. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/14/us/a-blue-collar-town-is-a-gay-
rights-battleground.html. Retrieved February 14, 2010.
Page 39 of 39
41. ^ "A Blue-Collar Town Is a Gay-Rights Battleground". The New York Times: p. 35.
1992-06-14. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/14/us/a-blue-collar-town-is-a-gay-rights-
battleground.html. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
42. ^ "Gulf veterans may get bonus". The St. Petersburg Times (Associated Press): p. 5A.
1993-05-17.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5PQNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bHsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6
838,3655773&dq=cornelius+ballot+gay. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
43. ^
a b c d e f
Egan, Timothy (1993-07-01). "Voters in Oregon Back Local Anti-Gay Rules".
The New York Times: p. A10. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/01/us/voters-in-
oregon-back-local-anti-gay-rules.html. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
44. ^
a b c d e
"OCA: Measure gaining momentum". Eugene (OR) Register-Guard (The
Associated Press): p. 4C. 1994-03-24.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=n3YVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q-
sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4122,5293705&dq=junction+city+ballot+gay. Retrieved 2009-08-
30.
[dead link]
45. ^
a b c d e f g
"6 Oregon Cities, 1 County Pass Laws Against Gay Rights". The Los
Angeles Times: p. A30. 1993-09-23.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/60388158.html?dids=60388158:60388158
&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+23%2C+1993&author=&pub=L
os+Angeles+Times+(pre-
1997+Fulltext)&desc=6+Oregon+Cities%2C+1+County+Pass+Laws+Against+Gay+Ri
ghts&pqatl=google. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
46. ^ "Oregon: going, going...". The Advocate: p. 12. 1994-06-28.
http://books.google.com/books?id=L2MEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gb
s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved 2008-07-28.
47. ^ "Euthanasia, Term Limits Among Key Ballot Issues". The Philadelphia Inquirer:
p. A14. 1991-11-06.
48. ^ "Austin City Council revisiting domestic partner benefits issue". The Dallas Voice.
2006-02-03. http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_1090.php. Retrieved
2009-09-01.
References
Faderman, Lillian (2007). Great Events From History: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and
Transgender Events, 1848-2006. Salem Press. ISBN 1-58765-264-1.
Keen, Lisa and Suzanne B. Goldberg (2000). Strangers to the Law: Gay People on Trial.
University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08645-6.
Murdoch, Joyce; Price, Deb (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the
Supreme Court. New York, Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-01513-1.
Rutledge, Leigh (1992). The Gay Decades. New York, Penguin. ISBN 0-452-26810-9.
Shilts, Randy (1982). The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, St.
Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-52330-0.
Vaid, Urvashi (1995). Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay & Lesbian Liberation.
New York, Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-47298-6.

Evaluation2012 296SpecialRightsLaw3FinalRev4p

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Evaluation2012 296SpecialRightsLaw3FinalRev4p

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation2012 296SpecialRightsLaw3FinalRev4p

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Text

June 18, 2012

You might also like