Perils of Promise
Keepers examined Page 5
Competing for
acceptance
.Page 18
The Carolinas’ Most Comprehensive Gay & Lesbian Newspaper
Published Every Two Weeks On Recycled Paper > Volume 12, Number 19 > February 21, 1998 • FREE
Maine voters repeal anti-bias law
Charlotte’s
Lisa and Lori
were among
^ose “tying
the knot" for
National
lYeedom to
Marry Day
Gay marriage, families under attack
Charlotte couples “tie
the knot” in protest
Mark F. Johnson
Special to Q-Notes
WASHINGTON, DO-The National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) has released
its first summary of states’ legislative activity
for the 1998 session, revealing that thus far a
total of 24 GLBT- or HIV/AIDS- related mea
sures have been introduced in 15 states.
Seven of the 10 unfavorable bills are against
GLBT families in the form of anti-adoption
and foster care, anti-domestic partnership and
anti-marriage bills. Since 25 states already have
laws banning same-gender marriage, gay activ
ists are worried that right-wing legislators will
shift their focus to discrediting GLBT families
this year. With recent, positive gains — such as
the court riding in New Jersey giving same-gen
der couples equal status in adoptions — mea
sures to counter these advancements will un
doubtedly be introduced.
“Last year we made great strides in our
struggle for tolerance and equality. We will work
diligendy to defeat these attacks and move for
ward a progressive family agenda,” stated Kerry
Lobel, NGLTF executive director.
In addition to attacks on families, at least
two anti-GLBT initiatives are targeted on state
wide ballots. The first was the February 10 vote
in Maine to repeal a law passed last year that
added sexual orientation to the state’s civil rights
code. By a margin of 4 percent, the law was
repealed by voters. In November, Hawaii vot
ers will decide whether to give the sute legisla-
mre the power to restrict same-gender marriage.
This initiative is in anticipation of an upcom
ing Hawaii court decision legalizing marriage
in the state.
Marriage
To date, 26 states have same-sex anti-mar
riage laws on the books. The New Mexico and
Washington state legislatures had bills intro
duced this month. The New Mexico measure,
a joint resolution, would put a marriage ban
initiative on the November ballot. In Washing
ton, Governor Locke vetoed that state’s mea
sure, as he did last year, but his veto was over
ridden by the legislature this year.
In addition, there is movement in Califor
nia to put an anti-marriage measure on the
statewide ballot. This effort is reportedly being
spearheaded by State Senator Pete Knight. The
state Attorney General’s office is reviewing ini
tiative language. Once approved, supporters of
the initiative can begin gathering signatures.
Life Lobby, California’s lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender statewide politick group re
ports that Knight would have to collect over
400,000 valid signatures in a month to qualify
for the November ballot — an unlikely feat.
In response to these ongoing assaults, on
February 12, communities throughout the
country marked National Freedom to Marry
Day, an event designed to highlight the injus
tice of current marriage laws. In Charlotte, a
mass “wedding” was conducted by Rev. Tim
Koch, pastor of New Life MCC, at Ambush. A
day earlier, the club distributed “knots” for
people to wear as part of the “Tie the Knot”
campaign that accompanied National Freedom
to Marry Day. About 12-15 couples partici
pated in the marriage ceremony and club man
agement estimated that approximately 100
knots were distributed.
Civil rights
Two states, Maryland and Iowa, and the ter
ritory of Puerto Rico have measures pending
that would ban discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation in employment, housing,
credit and public accommodation. These bills
are in addition to the one that was denied in
Maine, now the only state in New England
without a civil rights law banning discrimina
tion on the basis of sexual orientation.
Domestic partnership
Two states face unfavorable measures that
would limit the provision of domestic parmer
benefits. In Georgia, a bill would prevent state
and county employees from receiving domes
tic partner benefits by specifying “spouses and
dependent children” in place of the term “de
pendent” in reference to employment benefits.
Washington’s bill would prohibit the state —
including state agencies and universities —
from granting domestic partnership benefits to
same-sex couples. It specifically lists, but is not
limited to, housing, health care and insurance.
It could also be interpreted to prohibit cities,
counties and some non-profit organizations that
receive state funds from granting domestic part
nership benefits.
In Galifornia, three favorable domestic part
nership bills have been introduced. One mea
sure, modeled after a San Francisco ordinance
passed last year, would have required govern
ment contractors to provide equal benefits to
employees with spouses and those with domes
tic partners. The measure died in committee.
The other bills are still alive. One of them would
allow agencies in the state pension system to
voluntarily offer health benefits to partners of
teachers and employees of other state and local
entities. Another would require group health
plans to offer domestic partners coverage on
the same basis as other dependent coverage.
In Massachusetts, a fevorable domestic part
nership measure passed a voice vote in the state
senate. The bill would give state employees
domestic partnership benefits to unmarried
employees and their unmarried partners. The
measure now moves to the house. A domestic
partnership bill has also been introduced in
Puerto Rico.
Hate crimes
South Carolina and Virginia both have hate
crimes bills pending. In Virginia, the measure
would add sexual orientation to the state hate
crimes law. The South Carolina measure is left
See MARRIAGE on page 21
by Mark F. Johnson
Special to Q-Notes
WASHINGTON, DC— February 10 was
a disappointing day for Maine’s GLBT citizens
and allies as voters approved a referendum that
repealed the state’s civil rights law banning dis
crimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The measure, known as the Maine Human
Rights Act, was passed by the state legislature
and signed into law by Governor Angus King
last May. A conservative group led by mem
bers of the Christian Civic League of Maine
and the state chapter of the Chris
tian Coalition secured signatures
to put the issue to a public vote,
employing Maine’s rarely used
“people’s veto” provision. The re
peal amendment was passed by a
margin of 4 percent.
“The right wing again used a
divisive campaign to sell the lie
of ‘special rights’ at the ballot
box,” said Kerry Lobel, executive
director of the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). “We will con
tinue our efforts to secure civil rights laws in
every state.”
Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the
Human Rights Campaign, asserted that the
vote’s outcome ,was not representative of citi
zens’ feelings on the amendment. “A clear ma
jority of the public continues to believe that
discrimination against gay people is unjust.
Two-thirds of Maine voters supported the law
— they just didn’t go to the polls in sufficient
numbers. The vote in Maine was a small set
back caused by low turnout and a disingenu
ous campaign by religious political activists.”
Maine is the
only state in
New England
without a
civil rights law
banning
sexual
orientation
discrimination.
The effort to defeat the measure was
grassroots-driven, with hundreds of volunteers
making tens of thousands of phone calls in ap
proximately one month’s time. Tracey Conaty,
NGLTF Field Organizer, worked in Maine for
five weeks prior to the vote. She assisted the
field program of Maine Won’t Discriminate, the
organization that spearheaded the effort to de
feat the measure.
“Our thanks go to the hard-working gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered aaivists in
Maine who have now faced hostile statewide
ballot measures twice in just over
two years,” stated Lobel.
In 1995, Maine voters rejeaed
an anti-gay b^lot initiative, also
crafted by religious political ac
tivists, that was designed to ex
clude gay people from protec
tions in housing, employment,
public accommodations and
credit.
According to Birch, the radi
cal right’s ability to frame defeat
of the anti-discrimination measure as an “equal
ity” issue (the bill would give gays “special
rights”) proves the need for a federal bill. “The
fact that religious political groups were able to
bring this issue to a vote twice within three years
demonstrates why we need a single, uniform
federal law to protect gay people against dis
crimination, particularly in smployrnent. That’s
why we are continuing to press Congress to pass
the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,
which would outlaw workplace discrimination
based on sexual orientation. More than 80 per
cent of the US electorate supports the basic fair
ness embodied in this bill.” T
Millenium March on Washington
by David M. Smith
Special to Q-Notes
WASHINGTON, DC—The nation’s larg
est gay and lesbian political organization and
the nation’s largest gay, Christian denomina
tion have announced plans to jointiy sponsor a
march on Washington in the spring of the year
2000. The event will be produced by veteran
march organizer Robin Tyler who brought the
organizations together to formulate planning.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and
the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Com
munity Churches (UFMCC) are exploring
dates in spring 2000 for the “Millennium
March on Washington for Equal Rights,” the
heads of both organizations said.
Several prominent organizations have signed
on as endorsers, including the National Black
Gay and Lesbian Leadership Forum; the Na
tional Latino/a Lesbian and Gay Organization;
the National Center for Lesbian Rights; the Gay
and Lesbian Alliance Against Defemation; the
National Youth Advocacy Coalition; Parents,
Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; and
the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. Rep
resentatives from these organizations
and others will be sought to partici
pate on an organizing committee
which will help facilitate the orga
nization and presentation of the
event.
“This march will set a new
tone for a new century,” said
Elizabeth Birch, HRC executive director. “Full
equality under the law will be our achievement
in the new millennium.”
“Together, we will solidify the gains we’ve
made over the past decades and call upon our
nation to live out its promise of liberty and jus
tice for all,’” said Rev. Troy Perry, founder and
moderator of UFMCC. “This march will set
the pace for social justice and human rights.”
The organizations are working closely with
Tyler, an instrumental organizer/producer of the
past three marches on Washington dating back
to 1979, to produce the event.
“Robin’s depth of experience, community
commitment and unstoppable energy uniquely
qualify her to lead the organizing efforts for this
historic event,” said Birch and Perry.
“This is an historic time in our movement.
Aldiough we have much greater visibility and a
measure of cultural acceptance, we must not
be lulled into a false sense of security,” Tyler
said. “This march will once again show the self
esteem, strength and umvavering determination
of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
community.”
The last national march was held April
25, 1993 and, according to organiz
ers, attracted more than 1 million
people. The official figure was a
source of controversy for the US
Parks Department who were ac
cused of vasdy under-estimating
the crowd in their count of
600,000 participants. ▼