A long-overdue Bent Alaska update — October 2013

Coffey Ignores Evidence, Calls for Yet Another Study

Of the 734 respondents to One in 10:

• 61 percent reported being victimized by violence and harassment while in Alaska because of their sexual orientation;
• 39 percent reported discrimination in employment, housing, and loans/credit; and
• 33 percent reported discrimination from services and institutions.

From the “Closed Doors” component of Identity Reports:

• 31 percent of the 191 employers in the survey said they would not hire or promote, or would fire, someone they had reason to believe was homosexual.
• 20 percent of the 178 landlords in the survey said they would not rent to, or would evict, someone they had reason to believe was homosexual.

From the “Prima Facie” component of Identity Reports:

• 84 actual instances of antigay bias, discrimination, harassment, or violence (including three murders) were recorded involving 30 men and 21 women. 64 of the cases we documented were in Anchorage.
• Victims were predominately gay men or lesbians, but also included heterosexuals who were erroneously assumed to be gay or lesbian.

More about Dan Coffey’s task force resolution, starting with the text of the resolution itself:

• AR NO. 2009–186. “A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly authorizing a citizen task force to review the nature and extent of discrimination based on sexual orientation and the potential for conflict with constitutional rights.” Submitted by Assembly Member Dan Coffey for reading August 11, 2009.
• 8/6/09. “Coffey says city needs gay rights task force — NO DELAY: But backers and critics want to see assembly vote on proposed ordinance” by Don Hunter (Anchorage Daily News)

Incidentally, Don Hunter’s ADN story is incorrect in stating that there are “three versions of the original sexual orientation ordinance” for consideration by the Anchorage Assembly. In fact, there are four versions: on July 23, Assembly Member Patrick Flynn announced on his blog that he had written a new draft, version S-2.

Here are all four versions of Ordinance 64:

• AO No. 2009-64. Original draft submitted on behalf of then-Acting Mayor Matt Claman, for reading May 12, 2009.
• AO No. 2009-64 (S). First substitution version submitted on behalf of then-Acting Mayor Matt Claman, for reading June 9, 2009.
• AO No. 2009-64 (S-1). Second substitution version submitted by Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander, for reading June 16, 2009.
• AO No. 2009-64 (S-2). Third substitution version submitted by Assembly Member Patrick Flynn, for reading August 11, 2009.

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.

Kat’s testimony: Don’t be silenced

Editor’s Note: This is Kat’s testimony and post-testimony comments, exactly as she shared them. Anchorage is lucky to have eloquent young adults like Kat, willing to stand up and be counted.

* * *

i won’t take up much of your time since what i have to say will not take long. but i do thank the assembly for granting me these few moments.

i have lived in and around anchorage since i was 4 years old.

i have tremendous pride in my state and in my city and i had no intention of testifying when all of this began. indeed, i waited until i had reviewed the testimony already given in it’s entirety. what i saw was a great deal of prejudicial speech that proved exactly why these laws were needed. i also saw a great deal of pain and fear from those pleading with you, the assembly, to protect them.

i’m here today in the place of those who would otherwise have no voice. these people are silenced because the law does not protect them. basic needs like housing, employment and loans would be stripped from them for standing where i am now.

i’m extremely dismayed that our city has allowed religious leaders to dictate our laws and how our laws are written like their own personal theocracy for quite a few decades.

i think it is time for our assembly to take a stand and use their elected positions as public servants to protect all the people of our city and not give special rights of discrimination to certain groups.

i believe that rights are not just tokens to be doled out on a whim, but are the foundation for what our fore fathers delivered to us in the act of ultimate personal sacrifice.

i urge you to consider what has transpired and how it is viewed by the people.

we depend on our elected officials to protect the rights of minorities, as the majority would just as soon trample them. we depend on you to do what is just. we depend on you to protect the rights of all the citizens of Anchorage.

you have the voice.

please don’t be silenced.

* * *

At first i wondered if they would even get to my name that night. when suddenly, dozens of names were being called and no one went to speak, my heart pounded in my chest.

then my name was called.

my legal name.

and i went to the front. i waited as the gentleman before me finished speaking. supporters on both sides of me urged me forward. step after step, i approached the podium.

i set down my purse.

and i said my name.

my legal name.

for the record.

my voice wavered and tears nearly stopped me. but i knew that those supporters where behind me. i knew they were silently cheering me on.

i finished with a steady gaze into each assembly members eyes as i spoke those last few words. i wouldn’t have had the strength to do that without the energy of those behind me.

when i was through, i thanked the assembly and turned to walk away. i nearly ran. i didn’t make it all the way out before i had to sit down at the back of the chamber to catch my breath. my hands shook and my pulse choked me.

but i have never been so proud of myself.

because i will be able to tell my children and my grandchildren that my name is on that record as someone who stood on the side of a government that doesn’t kneel to the whims of religion, and of love without conditions.

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.

Anchorage ex-marine faces work discrimination for being transgender

Laura O’Lacy wrote the following letter to the Anchorage Assembly in support of a trans-inclusive ordinance, describing the harassment and discrimination she has faced as a transgender woman trying to get a job in her field of training.