Articles in Stories from Our Lives
Gay teen from Wasilla was assaulted, tires slashed, rejected by parents but looking ahead
Cody had a horrible coming out. His college buddies at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks and his brother and parents in Wasilla all reacted badly, only his sister is supportive. But he won’t let them ruin his life.
The “I’m From Driftwood” team interviewed LGBT Alaskans for their national story project, and the first video from Alaska was uploaded on Monday. The story is from Cody James, raised in Wasilla. Watch:
How sad that their son was assaulted and, instead of helping him, they caused him more harm. Hopefully, they will learn to love and support him as the wonderful young gay man that he is.
And what kind of university would allow a student to be harassed for 4 months?
The main perpetrator got a slap on the wrist, 24 hours in jail and some community service hours, Cody told Bent Alaska. The others got off. The city and campus police wouldn’t do anything to stop the bullying, so he fled Fairbanks and moved to Anchorage. When he explained to his family why he left college, they rejected him for being gay.
The University of Alaska, Fairbanks and the Fairbanks police owe Cody an apology, at the very least, and assurance that they will protect other students from being bullied out of an education. [Hint: Get an LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying policy, and enforce it.]
Cody wants to put this bad time behind him and move forward. But he could have called the FBI to investigate the assault under the federal Hate Crimes law passed in 2009. They have the authority to step in when local officers won’t take an anti-gay attack seriously.
Why the FBI? Because we aren’t protected by Alaska’s hate crimes law, and a bill adding LGBT Alaskans is currently stuck in the Finance committee.
Please contact the legislators today and tell them to approve SB 11, the Alaska Hate Crimes bill. We obviously need it.
Thanks to I’m From Driftwood for including Alaska in their story tour and collecting this important story. And thanks to Cody for being brave, finding support and sharing his story. May his life get much better and stay good.
LGBT veterans and DADT: True stories from I’m from Driftwood
In honor of Veteran’s Day, true stories of military life and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell from I’m from Driftwood.
And don’t forget that the The I’m From Driftwood Story Tour is in Alaska right now, and will be holding a fundraiser tonight from 7:00 to 9:00 PM at Mad Myrna’s in Anchorage. Even if you can’t make it, you can submit your own true story and/or donate to I’m from Driftwood to assist in IFD’s efforts to help LGBT youth realize they’re not alone.
These are story excerpts; follow the links to read each story in full.
I yelled at my Soldiers to return fire and stepped out of my cover to shoot back. We drove them away with a hail of bullets and somehow, we all managed to make it out without a scratch…. I received an Army Commendation Medal with Valor and a Bronze Star Medal for what I did in Iraq. Externally, I was brave. A hero. Internally, I was a coward. Hidden in the closet.
Matt R. from Colorado Springs, Colorado:
Nick and I sat as close together as we could without raising any eyebrows, chain smoking Marlboro Reds in silence. Occassionally he and I made eye contact and mouthed the words, “I love you,” to each other, after checking for witnesses. Then we went back to our cigarettes and silence. On the outside I showed no emotion, I was just a friend here to see him off because no one from his family made it. I wore sunglasses so no one could look at my swollen, red eyes…. I wanted to tell him just one more time in person, “Come back to me. In one piece. I’ll be here, while you’re there, waiting… For you.” Instead, I smoked and silently mouthed I love you while I held back the tears that I’m not allowed to show the world.
Anonymous from Dearborn, Michigan:
My lieutenant, a five-foot-two Latina, was scaring the crap out of all of us. Between her rank and how she was screaming now, we were all being overpowered.“If you have anything – anything – you want to say to somebody about being of a certain sexual orientation, about being a certain race, religion, gender – I don’t care. If you want to say it – say it to me. Apparently we have someone who likes writing hate mail to shipmates. Whoever you are, know that I will find you and you will be punished. So let this be a lesson to all of you here: if you want to tell a shipmate to Die, Fag, say it to my face first. Because guess what – you’re going to be admitting it to me at Captain’s Mast soon enough.”…
Sometimes, the Navy really does stand for excellence and the fair treatment of all. When it does, it’s because sailors are standing with it.
Ryan B. from Kewanee, Illinois:
I don’t think it’s okay for the gay community to be limited in how open they are in the military, but I do think that, as an unimportant factor in this case, it makes sense not to worry about it. What’s really important is personal development, the reason why I’ve chosen to follow this path in my life, serving as a member of the U.S. Marine Core as a gay teenager.
Hubert Dorsett from Bolger, Texas:
While in Destroyer School at Newport, I met the first man I would love and have a relationship with. He was a playwright from New York City, living near Provincetown, MA, and because of my feelings for him and because I had been the subject of several investigations by Naval Investigative Service, I decided to end my Navy career and resign my commission. In doing so I lost the first man I loved and I gave up a career that I loved, because I really did (and still do) love the Navy and all that it stood for, except of course for the policy on homosexuals.
Peter Yacobellis from New Hyde Park, New York:
This loose acceptance of a possibility that I could be “cured” was probably one of many reasons I pursued a career in the military. I suppose I hoped that the strictly heterosexual environment would “help”. I soon realized, being in an all-male unit, that my same-sex attraction was very real and not going to go away. I knew that I could easily comply with rules against engaging in intimacy that exist for everyone in basic training. But what was becoming clearer was what life would be like after basic training. I realized that after training, other airmen would be allowed to have intimate relationships and that I wouldn’t be able to have one with another male.
Zackariah Gonzales from Boise, Idaho:
It took three years of legal and administrative action, thousands of pages of documents, research and emails and a trip to Washington D.C. before the United States Coast Guard Discharge Review Board came to a final ruling. In 5-0 decision they ruled that the Command had violated provisions of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and did not follow Coast Guard policy on discharge proceedings, my rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice were violated, I was not afforded adequate legal representation and my discharge was illegal. They ordered that my discharge reason be changed from “homosexual conduct” to “general reasons” they also ordered that I be allowed to reenlist if I choose. The Commandant of the Coast Guard overruled my reinstatement, but let the rest of the decision stand.My name is Zackariah Gonzales, I am from Boise, Idaho, I was fired for being gay from the U.S. Armed Forces and I will not stop telling my story until the ban is lifted.
Breaking Free from ABT: One Man’s Journey
Does Anchorage Baptist Temple really do exorcisms to cast out the demon from gays? Yes, they do, and they set family members against each other. In an interview with The NorthView (published in its April 2010 issue), RJ described his struggle to break free from ABT and come out as a gay man, a struggle that nearly tore apart his family. He shares his story in the hope that it will help others who are coming out or supporting a gay family member, and even help members of ABT.
“I sincerely hope people from ABT read it. Perhaps it will be a wake up call for them to stop ignoring the things going on around them and perhaps they will open up their hearts and experience a little more love.”
Thanks, RJ, and happy birthday!
* * *
One Man’s Journey
This is an interview with RJ, a gay man raised in Anchorage Baptist Temple. RJ agreed to this interview in the hope that sharing his story and what he has experienced and learned will perhaps help others who may be walking a similar path or, at least, let them know they are not alone.
Editor: Let’s start with the basics of your background.
RJ: My grandparents moved to Alaska in the 1950’s. My mother and I were both born here. My grandfather was a minister. My father was a chaplain who worked in the ministry. In my early years, I lived with my father in Talkeetna and did my schooling through a Christian home school program. Our whole family was very involved in church. In the 1990’s, when I was 11, we moved to Anchorage and became very involved with Anchorage Baptist Temple (ABT).
My father and step-mother both worked at ABT to offset the school bill as it is really expensive to go there. Both taught Sunday school. Sunday they drove busses to pick up kids for Sunday school. We attended Sunday school in the morning followed by church and church again on Sunday night. On Monday night we had bible study, Tuesday night was visitation, Wednesday we had church and Awanas, a Christian program sort of like the Scouts, Thursday night was prayer meeting, and Friday night was open gym or “Destination Unknown,” a youth activity. And, of course, I had school Monday through Friday. Saturdays we would often go to Reverend Prevo’s house for dinner or meet with other church people. For a long time, I looked up to my father and I looked up to Prevo so much.
Editor: How long did this last?
RJ: I went to ABT through 6th, 7th grades and was kicked out in 8th grade.
Editor: What happened in the 8th grade?
RJ: For years I believed everything I was taught. The church was my life. Then, I began to notice and to realize things about the people all around me at ABT and, at the same time, I began to suspect I was gay. I saw so much hypocrisy, too many holes, too much difference between what the church people were teaching me and how there were acting in their own lives. But we were not allowed to talk about it or to question. We had to pretend everything was good. The biggest sin was to question. Instead of providing an answer, they would ask “Why are you being blasphemous?” I began acting out and got kicked out of school several times.
Editor: How was it to realize you were gay, especially since you so looked up to your father, Prevo, and the youth ministers?
RJ: At ABT we were taught anti-gay propaganda. We were taught gay rights are special rights. ABT provides families with an anti-gay “educational” video by Focus on the Family to watch at home. There were also exorcisms which ABT called “demon warfare.” The youth ministers and everybody else were taught this same anti-gay philosophy. I started to realize they were talking about me. The first time I kissed a guy I vomited a day straight over the conflict that it felt so right and I must be a horrible person – the worst thing I can be.
Editor: How were things going at home since your father and step-mother were so involved with ABT?
RJ: The whole gay issue tore me away from my family. There are generations of ministers on my father’s side of the family and to this day they do not speak to me because I am gay. Before I came out, I remember my step-mother telling me that I was so like her brother except that he was gay and I would never be.
It was always made clear that it was not okay to be gay. My whole life began falling apart. When I was 13 I told my father I did not want to go to ABT church or their school. I told him I would go to church only if I could go to public school. He responded by locking me in my room with a board and nails. I kicked down the door and came flying through it like a hellhound with fists flying at my father. I got arrested for malicious destruction of property and went to McLaughlin for three days, followed by family court, a shelter, and foster care. My whole teenage time was spent bouncing between the Laurel shelter, foster homes, Convenent House, Maplewood, and my mom’s house. I was on probation. Lori Rodriguez was my P.O. and she was a phenomenal case worker.
Editor: Wow. What happened after you were thirteen?
RJ: When I was 14, I came out to my mother. I said, “Mom, I think I’m bi.” She said, “No, honey, I think you’re gay.” Later, she told me she thought I was going to be transgender. She told me I used to dress up with her make-up. My brother was a gay hate monger until I told him. When I was 15, I came out to my father in the Anchorage Daily News when they published a letter I wrote. He called me and asked, “Are you sure?” My step-mother said, “No, you’re not gay. You’re just confused.” I moved to Palm Springs when I was 17. Palm Springs was my “gay education.” My birthday there was a white party. What a way to turn 18! I made a lot of friends and learned about what that kind of gay life was like.
I returned to Alaska and, since I had no place to stay, I told my father it was just a phase, moved back with him, and back into the closet. I tried to pray my gay away. I begged God. I would have given anything to be straight.
Editor: Is this when the exorcism took place?
RJ: Yes. I went back to ABT. They had been studying Bob Larson‘s “Deliverance” exorcism ministry. They had a class to teach how to cast out demons on Friday nights. There was a questionnaire to determine if I had done something to open a portal which leads to demonic possession. The questions were things like did I try to control the weather, change stop lights, read horoscopes, use tarot cards and, of course, have sex with a man.
Editor: What happened at the exorcism? Who was there?
RJ: The exorcism took place at ABT. There were others there as well. I sat down and started crying. The Board of Directors, deacons, classmates, and family prayed over us. They anointed us each with oil and tried to cast the demon out.
Editor: Wow. I don’t know what to say. What happened next?
RJ: The reason I am telling you this is because I was in foster homes and shelters. I did not have anyone to look up to or with whom to talk. There wasn’t gay TV. Everyone said AIDS was God’s punishment. I want others to know they are not alone. When I was 19 I began developing a good group of friends, ones to last a lifetime. My friend Chris got me out of there. Tasha, who is another friend and a devout Catholic, said “Whether I agree with it or not, I don’t understand how what people do in their bedrooms has anything to do with me.” And, that gave me my first glimmer that maybe I was okay. They did social things with me when they knew I was gay. The father of one of my friends was a minister and he said “It’s not my job to judge you. It is my job to love you. If God is angry at you about anything, it is probably because you used to be friends with him.” I wonder, how can I have a relationship with God when everyone I know who follows him tells me I am the devil? When I do something wrong, I have a heavy conscious. But when I lie in bed with my partner, I feel no guilt. I know that being with him is right and I know God loves me.
Editor: Where are you now in your relationships with your mother, father, and ABT?
RJ: My mom is a great supporter. Mom was a cab driver and she took me to introduce me to Myrna’s and the GLBT community. She comes for all my Imperial Court functions. Last summer she was at the Assembly hearings. She saw a guy carrying a sign that said “I was born Black. You chose to be gay” and asked to meet Prevo. She said to Prevo and the group with him “Do you remember my son? He grew up in your church. I watched your message of hate try to destroy him, to teach him to hate himself. My God is a God of love and healing. This message of hate is something you are going to have to answer to God for one day.” Then my mom walked away. One of the men jumped up and said he did not want her to walk away angry and wouldn’t she please eat with them. She agreed and had a hot dog with them. Then she stood up and said “I sat down and ate with you. Will any of you sit down and eat with my son?” She was met with silence.
My dad is still a struggle but we are starting to build a dialog. My father has made significant steps in my direction. He sent me some e-mails which I ignored. Then one came and the subject line said “I don’t care that you’re gay. I just want to talk to you.” Considering where he started from, my dad has come a long way and I give him a lot of credit for it.
We have all made mistakes and ABT hates us now. I pity that church. You keep everything quiet, don’t talk about the problems the people are actually having. There is no real community.
Editor: I know you are telling your story to hopefully help others. What final things would you like others to know who may be having an experience similar to yours?
RJ: Get out and talk to as many people as you can. Ask questions. Ask other religious leaders. Don’t be afraid to talk about it. I don’t think any one person can impose on us their particular interpretation of things. You have to have your own personal relationship with God. I wish I had spoken up sooner. I discovered a lot of people already knew I was gay and did not care. The people that are going to be there for you are going to be there for you.
Editor: Is it okay if people contact you if they are walking a similar path and want to reach out?
RJ: Yes. I can be reached via e-mail.
Tim’s testimony: The research is clear
Good evening. I live in Anchorage, I’m 52 years old and I’m gay, and I make no apologies for that. EVER. But what’s wrong with being gay anyway? Absolutely nothing.
The research on homosexuality is very clear:
Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.
This is from The American Psychological Association’s “Statement on Homosexuality” from way back in July 1994.
The Church also teaches understanding and compassion toward gay and lesbian people. In their 1976 statement, To Live in Christ Jesus, the American bishops wrote, “Some persons find themselves through no fault of their own to have a homosexual orientation. Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship, and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community.… The Christian community should provide them a special degree of pastoral understanding and care.” In 1990, the U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops repeated this teaching in their instruction, Human Sexuality.
When I discussed this ordinance with my family who lives in the Deep South, I was surprised at a comment I received from my sister-in-law, a woman who lives in rural North Carolina. She wrote “this is about fundamental decency towards each other and if one doesn’t have that type of basic respect for another human being, all of the religion and political views in the world are meaningless.”
Before I run out of time I would like to state that I enthusiastically support Ordinance 64. Please vote YES…. all 11 of you!
Obviously some disagree with me and I’d like to address a few of their objections:
Including sexual orientation as a protected class, grants “special rights” or privileges to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. This is factually incorrect because the legislation protects every person without exception, whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or, sometimes, asexual.
Including sexual orientation will criminalize any religious speech that presents homosexuality as a sin. This is factually incorrect because in the U.S., speech attacking a minority group is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Hate-crime legislation does not inhibit speech, it only is applicable if a violent crime has first been committed such as attempted murder, assault, aggravated assault, etc.
Including sexual orientation as a protected class is invalid because such classes must be reserved for innate, unchangeable, unchosen factors in a person’s life, like race, skin color, sex, degree of permanent disability, etc. This is not a defensible argument because religion has traditionally been included in hate-crime and human rights legislation. One’s faith identification is certainly changeable and chosen. Also, according to the vast majority of mental health therapists, human sexuality researchers, the Roman Catholic Church, liberal faith groups and some mainline faith groups, sexual orientation is neither changeable nor chosen.
Sexual orientation and gender identity may be words that cause unease or fear for individuals who have not studied the issues, and this is exactly why major civil rights changes usually come from legislatures, judges, or executive decree rather than by popular vote.
Take slavery for example. Late in the 17th century, Leander, a Roman Catholic theologian wrote:
It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture…It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors… All theologians are unanimous on this.
Is it difficult to guess what a “vote of the people” would have decided about abolishing slavery in those times?
On women’s right to vote: In March 1884, Rev. Professor H. M. Goodwin wrote in the New Englander and Yale Review, Volume 43, Issue 179:
Before committing ourselves to one more radical and irremediable error, and plunging blindly into this gulf of women’s suffrage, it will be well to pause and see whither we are going, and what this new movement, or ‘reform’ really signifies; whether it rests on a true principle or a shallow and pleasing fallacy, and whether its results are likely to be beneficial or disastrous. This whole movement for female suffrage, is, at least in its motive and beginning, a rebellion against the divinely ordained position and duties of woman, and an ambition for independence and the honors of a more public life; as if any greater and diviner honor could be given to woman than those which God has assigned her; as if the sanctities of home and the sacred duties of wife and mother, with all their sacrifices, were not a higher sphere and a truer glory—a glory she shares with the world’s Redeemer—than the vulgar publicity of the polls and speech making, or the campaigning, or even the Senate and the bar.
Were women allowed to vote in 1884? In some places yes, but in many places not until the Nineteenth Amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1920.
It was only 42 years ago — on June 12, 1967 — that the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down a Virginia statute barring whites from marrying non-whites. The decision also overturned similar bans in 15 other states. Since that landmark Loving v. Virginia ruling, the number of interracial marriages has soared; for example, black-white marriages increased from 65,000 in 1970 to 422,000 in 2005, according to Census Bureau figures. Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7 percent of America’s 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970.
Opinion polls show overwhelming popular support, especially among younger people, for interracial marriage, but that’s not to say acceptance has been universal. Bob Jones University in South Carolina only dropped its ban on interracial dating in 2000; a year later 40 percent of the voters objected when Alabama became the last state to remove a no-longer-enforceable ban on interracial marriages from its constitution. The US Supreme Court, not a vote by the majority of citizens, is what has allowed several of my friends to be married today.
So in summary, your YES vote on Ordinance 64 will help ensure that ALL citizens of Anchorage are treated fairly, equally, and without discrimination. Thank you.
Mike’s testimony: I will fight for liberty
Like Kat, author of yesterday’s testimony, Mike is a young adult who spoke in favor of the ordinance. Bent Alaska is happy to report that many Anchorage youth support LGBT equal rights. — Editor
* * *
As a fantastic orator, Mark Hamilton, once said, “Responsibility means that if you have the ability to respond, then you have the responsibility to speak.” I will take a moment to remind all present of the words in our great Constitution, “That all persons have the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and “protection under the law.”
The essence of this matter is not what one religion or what one advocacy group feels, but whether We, as Alaskans, can allow inequality to persevere. Denial of the rights of an entire minority is beyond morally reprehensible. It is something I cannot, in good conscience, sit idly by and watch happen in my city.
I want to make it clear: I do not seek to force or push my opinion on others, merely to be free from their persecution against myself, against my brothers and sisters, against our children, and yours.
The protection of a minority from the tyranny of a majority is one issue each and every Alaskan ought to be proud of. I won’t ask you for Liberty; I will scream for it, from the mountaintops, from city hall, from the steps of your courtrooms.
I will fight for Liberty because I know better than most that Freedom is not Free, and because it is the American thing to do. I urge you to vote “yes.”
I would like to end with a quote from one of my first letters to the Editor of the ADN, as it is still pertinent today:
The religious right would like to resort to ad-hominem attacks on us and other illogical counters to our arguments. Well, frankly all this religious hoopla has no place in a secular argument; it doesn’t matter what your Bible says in a debate over how the laws of our country (or city) ought to be. What matters is right and wrong, and that their oppressive policies and limitations on our God-given freedoms are wrong.
Gayle’s testimony: The Catch-22 of discrimination
“Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” Night after night we are lumped together with murderers, drug addicts, liars, thieves and prostitutes, and told we will be judged like them. We have to sit here and listen to bias because we must wait our turn to testify. This in itself is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. We wait our turn because we believe our civil rights need to be guaranteed with this amendment.
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are largely an invisible minority. Many who have read scripture have said that they know people who are gay and lesbian and are invisibly patting themselves on the back for being nice to a gay person and for their “conditional” love. What they do not see is that they interact with us every day. We are your bankers, teachers, doctors, bus drivers, stylists, students, social workers, artists and sales people. The next time a stranger smiles or says “hi” on the street, or your life is made easier by someone doing a good job, ask yourself “Could they be gay?” How many times have you asked a nice young man if he “had a girlfriend?” If so, your hetero is showing. Instead, how about saying, “Is there anyone special in your life?” We live, eat, play, pray, and work invisibly; and we choose to reveal ourselves only to those we trust because rejection is painful.
You have asked for specific instances of discrimination, but that in itself is a Catch-22. Because there are no protections for GLBT people as a class, there are no agencies that can take their complaints of discrimination. Because there are no cases on file, it then follows that discrimination does not exist. That is the circuitous logic of Catch-22. The claim that these are “special rights” shows the degree to which GLBT people are seen as “so out of the ordinary” that their claim to ordinary rights seems special. Last assembly meeting, you believed Chief Huen when he said that his department needed the 12 hour posting for homeless camps as a tool for his department to use. Believe me when I say we need this amended ordinance as a tool for the protection of our civil rights.
You cannot appease those that oppose this ordinance with rewrites and exemptions. Therefore, I propose that you write the amended ordinance with language that protects the entire gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community. And then vote “yes” to pass it.
And by the way, the woman who testified ahead of me (yesterday’s post), in a week and a half we will celebrate our 32nd anniversary.
Julie’s testimony: 5 Misconceptions about Ordinance 64
First of all, I want you to know that it has been extremely painful for the GLBT community to sit through these hearings being verbally assaulted and denigrated by the religious opponents of Ordinance 64.
You may have heard what I am about to say, but it bears repeating, to get us back to the original proposal.
Misconception #1: Our opponents claim they hate the behavior, not the person. This is the first of many misconceptions the opponents cling to about my community. They do not know us. I am a Lesbian, and it’s not what I do, but who I am. My emotional, social, romantic and sexual energies are linked to women. If I were to be celibate for the rest of my life, I would still be a lesbian.
Misconception #2: That sexual orientation is a choice. Psychologists tell us that sexual orientation is formed very early in life, by complex factors of nature and nurture, and that there is little to no choice about it. Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, but no one suggests that it is a choice.
Misconception #3: The “gay agenda.” We do have an agenda — to gain equal protection from discrimination and live healthy, happy lives.
Misconception #4: There are cures or treatments for homosexuality. Since homosexuality is not an illness or a disease, there is no need to talk about cures.
Misconception #5, the biggest misconception of all: Passing this ordinance will result in a loss of rights by those opposing it and will create special rights for the GLBT community. Neither of these premises is true. Discrimination is not a right nor a freedom, regardless of the beliefs from which it stems, so it’s not something that can be taken away. The GLBT community would gain equal rights, not special rights.
I believe in freedom of speech (and being responsible for the abuse of that right),
religious freedom (but not forcing those beliefs on others),
and the separation of church and state, or city in this case.
The religious testimony has turned these hearings into a stage for judgment rather than a fight for civil rights. Let’s get back to the basic issue here: the need for GLBTs to be in included in the anti-discrimination ordinance.
The testimony the first night of the hearings and thereafter from members of our community should have provided enough evidence to show the need for Ordinance 64, but if that isn’t enough, have you been hearing the rhetoric and messages of our opponents?
I urge you to pass Ordinance 64 with language that protects the entire GLBT community. Thank you.
Pamela’s testimony: Existing law does not protect
Pamela Kelley, attorney and UAA Justice Center Professor, prepared the following testimony on AO-64, which was first posted here. Her actual testimony varied from these notes to address a case that was applied incorrectly by an opponent. Kelley’s explanation of that case (Oncale) is also worth reading and is posted HERE.
* * *
Thank you – Madame Chairman, members of the assembly, Mr. Mayor. My name is Pamela Kelley. I am a member of the Alaska bar, no longer practicing but now teaching undergraduates about the law. I live in Anchorage. I signed up, belatedly, to testify because I think the state of the existing law has been obscured during the public comment already taken.
Federal, state and local laws overlap in the area of equal rights in employment, public accommodations and commerce. The first inaccuracy I hear repeated in these chambers is the idea that existing law already provides the protections that the proposed ordinance would cover. It does not.
The Constitution’s equal protection clauses, at the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, limit actions by the government – not private acts of discrimination. Nor are federal statutes helpful.
In Title 42 of the United States Code, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended reaches the area. Federal law here identifies those classes of persons against whom discrimination is illegal to include: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. None of those terms – including “sex” as defined – reach lesbians, gays, bisexual and trans-gendered individuals. But that only sets the minimums. The state of Alaska law may reach additional classes. Upon examination, however, it’s apparent that the Alaska Human Rights Act does not expand the classifications to cover this.
AS 18.80.220. protects against discrimination based on: race, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, or parenthood. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not identified as protected classes by state law, either.
The second category of comments that is legally inaccurate suggests the proposed ordinance confers special rights. One of two things might be going on here. Either some might be confusing the concept of non-discrimination with affirmative action. Or, some erroneously consider equal protection a kind of zero-sum game.
First: Discrimination occurs when one possessed of differences from another is rejected by that other, solely based on that difference. Only certain forms of discrimination are illegal under state, federal and local law. Same treatment as everyone else – despite differences – is the foundation of equal rights law.
Different, in fact preferential, treatment is what is at the basis of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a term used to describe programs and policies that provide preferences in benefits or contracting to a protected class to make up for historically discriminatory practices directed at that class. Obviously not the ordinance.
That leaves me with the “zero sum game” fallacy. There is no finite pool of rights to which equal protection applies. Our religious neighbors, in the free exercise of their religion, as a constitutional right, are not released from their obligations to comply with the law. The right of free exercise of religion does not prevent the law’s application when the doctrine of a freely chosen religion suggests members violate public laws. The simple example is the prohibition against illegal drug use that continues to apply to a person even if her selected religion views such use as sacramental.
Equal protection laws are aspirational, in a way. I hope my home town aspires to accept all of its people for exactly who they are and will apply the law to them equally.
Thank you.
Tiffany’s testimony: To protect each citizen
My name is Tiffany McClain, I’m a resident of downtown Anchorage, and a beneficiary of the civil rights movement that ultimately gave birth to laws to protect people of color, women, people with disabilities, and religious communities from discrimination in the public sphere and–in at least 108 cities across the country–also protect me from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. I’m here to urge Assembly members to vote Yes on a version of AO 64 that does not yield in its original purpose of protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.
When I hear the arguments in opposition to AO 64, I can’t help but be reminded that in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, there was a huge outcry from white segregationists who invoked their interpretation of Christianity to rationalize their objection to school integration. They argued that the Supreme Court was forcing them to disobey the laws of God, who had–in their view–created the races as separate for a reason. School integration, they believed, would inevitably lead to intermarriage between the races, which violated God’s plan for the universe. To them, integration was a sin.
I am very grateful–because otherwise I probably wouldn’t be standing here today–that in the face of such arguments, those in charge of making and enforcing the law recognized that they had a responsibility to protect each and every citizen from discrimination and that while people and churches have a right to believe what they want, the exercise or invocation of religion is no excuse for discrimination in the public sphere–I mean public schools, housing, restaurants, and employment. And I sincerely hope that Assembly members will do the same by voting Yes to protect LGBT people from discrimination in these aspects of public life.
At the last hearing, Assemblymen Gutierrez asked a man testifying against AO 64 if this was a black-and-white issue, if one side had to lose in order for the other to win. I strongly disagreed with that man’s answer in the affirmative. Our Constitution, our legal system, our government is all about compromise, about finding the right balance between protecting individual freedoms without allowing any group of people to run roughshod over the freedoms of another group. It hasn’t always been easy, but if we want our democracy to survive it’s a balancing act that we all have to commit to. There’s nothing black-and-white about any of this and to suggest otherwise is just as extremist a view as those who, back in the 1950s, were so certain that integration would lead to the destruction of the white race. Take a look around–white people are still here. And I believe that if this law passes tomorrow or next month, or next year that 60 years from now there will still be churches and schools that choose to preach against homosexuality and they will be allowed to exist–and should be allowed to exist–because that’s what our Constitution promises. But that promise can in no way be interpreted to mean that individuals should be denied equal access to employment, housing, education, and public accommodations just because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. That is all we’re asking you and the mayor to recognize.
Thank you.
Kathy’s testimony: There is indeed prejudice
In gratitude for the many speakers who testified in favor of the Anchorage equal rights ordinance, Bent Alaska is posting a Testimony series. May the wise words of our friends and neighbors heal us from the weeks of hate-filled hearings and give us strength to face the next stage of this political process.
* * *
Kathy’s Testimony
I’m here to ask the Assembly to do 3 things:
First, end the hearing on AO#64. We have seen hundreds of people come forward already. You have listened to Bible readings, hymns, personal confessions, sermons, grandstanding, and copious examples of wild and “unique” logic. I have heard you accused of graft, being moral dictators, and denying parental rights. You’ve been threatened with everything from eternal damnation to losing your assembly seats. On what other matter of municipal business would you countenance all this?
I have watched you remain remarkably polite, attentive, and respectful in the face of this onslaught, not to mention striving to keep a straight face. You know how much work and aggravation this public hearing has brought to you. Think of the fortitude required of those of us who are the objects of so much stereotyping, vilification, and venom. I’ve heard these hearings described as ‘municipally sanctioned gay-bashing.’ Enough. You have done your duty; little new information is coming to light; we have suffered more than enough. Move to end these hearings.
Second, the parade of testifiers surely has established without a doubt that there is indeed prejudice against homosexuals in Anchorage. Some of you question whether that prejudice leads to any actual acts of discrimination. I’d like to remind you of at least two testimonies the first night of the hearings that brought forward very clear, very specific, verifiable instances of blatant discrimination. Some may find these instances easy to discount as anecdotal, or cite lack of evidence of discrimination in public records. I remind you that if these individuals approached our very own municipal Equal Rights office, they would be turned away because our ordinances do not protect them. If you do nothing else as a result of these hearings, at the very least I urge you to direct your Equal Rights Commission to begin to document claims and collect data on discrimination against LGBT individuals.
Third, it is very risky for members of the LGBT community to come forward to speak, not only at assembly meetings, but even to acknowledge their sexual orientation in daily circumstances. “So what,” some people say, “my own heterosexual orientation is not a topic of discussion; homosexuals just want to flaunt their sexuality.” But in fact heterosexuals speak freely of their families, friends, and activities. They can share pictures, tease a spouse in public, complain about a mate, bring spouses to company events, hold hands in public, etc., clearly showing evidence of their heterosexuality in the normal course of the day. That they can do so without worrying about an employer or landlord taking action against them for being heterosexual is an unconscious assumption on their part, a part of their normal right to freedom of speech, expression, and association. LGBT people cannot take these rights for granted. Many find their safety, job security, and very survival depends on keeping their sexual orientation hidden, themselves hidden and silenced. I would challenge any heterosexual person present to live with such restriction and not find it a violation of inalienable civil rights. I urge you, Assembly members, to support this ordinance to bring EQUIVALENT civil rights to all citizens of Anchorage.
