You are on page 1of 61

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 ProtectedClass 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: 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. 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. 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 Justification 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 Analysis of 2012-296 and Advocates Claims


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 newlyprotected 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 Costs 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 illdefined 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 Costs section, below, there is more information on what facilities are affected nearly every Jacksonville building and institution is impacted.

Costs
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: Any retail or wholesale establishment, 406.301(a); 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); 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 Page 5 of 39

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; Hospitals, health care facilities . . . swimming pools, nurseries, kindergartens, or day care centers, Sec. 406.301(f), and 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, 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. 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. 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. Substantial Litigation and Judicial Expense. In all workplaces it will be unlawful to discriminate against homosexuals and transgenders. The

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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. 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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.

Justification
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

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 samesex 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-commonsense.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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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: Those individuals who report race relations being poor are most likely to report a high level of prejudice against lesbians and gays (page 13); 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); 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 211Respondant 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: 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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). 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 homosexualtransgender activist headquarters, recorded the SUBJECTIVE anecdotes of 65 people. The following are the applicable findings: 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. 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. 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 offensefrequency 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 Intervention by the State Cities Reject Special Sexual Orientation Legislation Citizen Referenda Reject Special Sexual Orientation Legislation

Intervention by the State

Nebraska Attny General Bruning takes on Omahas gay rights ordinance


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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 antidiscrimination policy, she said. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already gives everyone equal protection under the law.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 Page 14 of 39

Proposed bill would nullify Missoula antidiscrimination ordinance


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

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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."

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 Page 16 of 39

Tennessee Passes Bill to Void Nashville Anti-Discrimination Ordinance


by Steve Williams May 23, 2011 http://www.care2.com/causes/tennessee-legislatureadvances-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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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.

Cities Reject Special Sexual Orientation Legislation

Manhattan council repeals ordinance


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.

Another state board rejects sexual orientation change


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-9e55001cc4c03286.html

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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.

Voters reject sexual orientation initiative


April 5th, 2012 http://www.adn.com/2012/04/03/2406275/voters-reject-gay-rightsinitiative.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/prop-5-anchorage-alaskavote_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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 nondiscrimination 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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.

Goshen votes against changing antidiscrimination ordinance


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 antidiscrimination 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

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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.

Cities still wrestling with including sexual orientation in anti-discrimination ordinances


By Jared Council | Sunday, April 8, 2012 | http://m.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/08/30pthed1-10-inches-30pt-hed1-10-inches/

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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, selfimage, 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 54 vote.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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.

Oklahoma Cities Shy Away From AntiDiscrimination Measures


by Holly Wall, News Editor | Nov2011 | http://thislandpress.com/roundups/cities-shy-awayfrom-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

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 cosponsored 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 109th, since 1994, though it has yet to be passed.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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 Council Rejects LGBT AntiDiscrimination Ordinance


Omaha, Nebraska 10/26/2010 http://www.towleroad.com/2010/10/omaha-city-council-rejectslgbt-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 Council rejects antidiscrimination ordinance 5-2

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 Page 28 of 39 By Todd A. Heywood | 08.12.09 | http://michiganmessenger.com/24706/jackson-city-councilrejects-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 antidiscrimination 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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.

Cedar City Utah Council Rejects AntiDiscrimination Ordinance


By Sarah Webber | April 8, 2011 | http://www.suunews.com/news/2011/apr/07/city-councilrejects-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 nonenforceable 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.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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.

Citizen Referenda Reject Special Sexual Orientation Legislation

List of US ballot initiatives to repeal LGBT anti-discrimination laws


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_ballot_initiatives_to_repeal_LGBT_antidiscrimination_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 antidiscrimination 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

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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

Voters repealed the ordinance, recalled a councilman who supported Placed on the ballot by it and defeated the mayor at the next the Boulder city council election. In 1987, a citizen's initiative after passage of a gay to ban discrimination was passed by rights ordinance met with voters, the only such measure in the public outcry country passed by popular referendum.[2] To repeal the county's gay rights ordinance To repeal the city's gay rights ordinance To repeal the city's gay Passed by a greater than two-to-one margin.[3] Passed by a two-to-one margin.[4] Passed by a five-to-one margin.[5]

June 7, 1977 April 25, 1978 May 9,

Miami-Dade County, Florida St. Paul, Minnesota Wichita,

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 Page 32 of 39 1978 May 23, 1978 November 7, 1978 Kansas Eugene, Oregon California Seattle, Washington Santa Clara County, California San Jose, California Duluth, Minnesota Davis, California rights ordinance To repeal the city's gay Passed.[6] rights ordinance Proposition 6, to bar gay and lesbian people from Defeated by a two-to-one margin.[7] teaching in public schools To repeal the city's gay Defeated with 63% of the vote.[8] rights ordinance To repeal the county's gay rights ordinance Passed.[9] Passed.[9] Passed.[10] Failed.

June 3, 1980

1984 1986

November 8, 1988

November 7, 1989

To repeal the city's gay rights ordinance To repeal the city's gay rights ordinance To repeal the city's gay rights ordinance To bar citizens from St. Paul, repealing the city's gay Minnesota rights ordinance by initiative Measure 8, to revoke an executive order barring Oregon discrimination in the executive branch To repeal the city's gay Athens, Ohio rights ordinance Irvine, To repeal the city's gay California rights ordinance Concord, To repeal the city's gay California rights ordinance Tacoma, Washington To repeal the city's gay rights ordinance To repeal the city's gay rights ordinance To repeal the city's gay rights ordinance To repeal the city's gay rights law To repeal the city's gay

Failed.[11]

Passed with 53% of the vote.[12]

Passed.[13] Passed.[13] Passed.[13] Passed with 51% of the vote. A 1990 ballot initiative to restore the law was rejected by over 70% of the electorate.[14] Failed.[15] Failed with 54% of the vote.[16] Failed with 57% of the vote.[17] Passed with almost 60% of the vote.

May 21, 1991 November 5, 1991 November 3, 1992

Denver, Colorado St. Paul, Minnesota Portland, Maine Tampa,

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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] Passed with 53.2% of the vote.[19] Later struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans.[20]

Colorado

Oregon

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 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."

Defeated with 56% of the vote.[21]

Cincinnati, Ohio

Lewiston, Maine November 1994 November Alachua County, Florida Oregon

Passed with 67% of the vote. Despite being worded almost identically to Ballot Issue 3, to prevent Colorado's Amendment 2, the Sixth the city from enacting any Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the gay rights ordinances. measure as constitutional in 1997.[22] Cincinnati voters repealed Issue 3 in 2004.[23] To repeal a recently Passed by more than a two-to-one passed anti-discrimination margin.[24] ordinance 1) To overturn the existing gay rights law Both passed with close to 60% of the 2) To bar future vote.[25] ordinances Measure 13, to forbid Defeated.[26]

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 Page 34 of 39 state and local governments from passing antidiscrimination ordinances Proposition 1, to forbid state and local governments from Defeated by a 3,000 vote margin.[27] passing antidiscrimination ordinances To repeal the city's gay rights ordinance To repeal the city's gay rights ordinance Failed.[28] Five days before the election a judge threw out the referendum so the votes were not tallied.[29]

8, 1994 Idaho

West Palm January 10, Beach, 1995 Florida March 7, 1995 Tampa, Florida

November 7, 1995

Maine

1996

Lansing, Michigan

Question 1, to ban the state and local governments from Defeated with 53% of the vote.[30] passing antidiscrimination ordinances Two initiatives, both to repeal the city's gay rights Both passed. ordinance To repeal the county's gay rights ordinance Failed.[31]

Miami-Dade September County, 10, 2002 Florida March 1, 2005 March 24, 2009 November 8, 2011 April 4, 2012 Topeka, Kansas

To bar Topeka from recognizing sexual orientation as a protected class for ten years Charter Amendment One, Gainesville, to repeal the city's gay Florida rights ordinance To repeal the antiTraverse City, discrimination ordinance Michigan enacted in 2010. To repeal the antiAnchorage, discrimination ordinance Alaska enacted in 2011.

Defeated with 52% of the vote.[32]

Failed with 58% of the vote.[33]

Defeated by a two-to-one margin.[34]

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

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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] Outcome Failed with 63% voting against.[40] May 19, 1992 Passed with 55.4% of the vote.[41] May 18, 1993 Passed.[42] Passed.[43] Passed by one vote.[43][36] The measure was later invalidated Junction City by a court but a new initiative passed in March 1994.[44] Douglas Passed.[43] County June 29, 1993 Josephine Passed.[43] County Klamath Passed.[43] County Linn County Passed.[43] Creswell Passed.[45] Estacada Passed.[45] Grants Pass Passed.[38] Gresham Passed.[38] September 21, Lebanon Passed.[45] 1993 Medford Passed.[45] Molalla Passed.[45] Sweet Home Passed.[45] Jackson Passed.[45] County 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] March 22, Turner Passed.[44] 1994 Marion Passed.[44] County Election date Locale Corvallis Springfield Cornelius Canby

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 Page 36 of 39 Cottage Grove May 17, 1994 Gresham Oakridge Roseburg Veneta November 8, 1994 Lake County Passed.[38] Received a majority of the vote but not the 60% majority required for passage.[46] Passed.[38] Passed.[38] Passed.[38] Passed.[38]

Domestic partnership repeal initiatives


Election date November 6, 1990 1991 May 7, 1994 November 7, 1995 Locale Seattle, Washington San Francisco Austin, Texas Northhampton, Massachusetts Outcome Failed. Failed.[47] Repealed.[48] Repealed by a margin of 87 votes.[30]
[14]

Notes:
^ Faderman, p. 228 ^ Phelps, Timothy (1995-10-08). "Gay issues split Colorado cities". Eugene RegisterGuard (Newsday): p. 8A. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wUlWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6547,1764809. Retrieved 2012-01-14. 3. ^ Rutledge, p. 108 4. ^ Rutledge, p. 122 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 8. ^ Rutledge, p. 129 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] 1. 2.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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. 199111-06. http://nl.newsbank.com/nlsearch/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_direct0=0EB5DB483B206179&p_field_direct0=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 CapitalJournal. 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-measuresterm-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 PhysicianAssisted 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. Retrieved 2009-08-30. 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]

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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. Retrieved 2009-09-01. 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-andissues-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_02868787846_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-rightslaw.html. 34. ^ "'Yes' wins big in TC non-discrimination vote". Travers City Record-Eagle. 2001-1108. http://record-eagle.com/2011election/x471037074/-Yes-wins-big-in-TC-nondiscrimination-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/antidiscrimination-bill-results-in-anchorage-called-into-question-over-allegations-of-voterfraud/. 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=goDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6248,2326847&dq=cottage+grove+ballot+gay. Retrieved 2009-0830. 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-gayrights-battleground.html. Retrieved February 14, 2010.

Analysis, Special Rights Bill 2012-296 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-rightsbattleground.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-inoregon-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=qsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4122,5293705&dq=junction+city+ballot+gay. Retrieved 2009-0830.[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+(pre1997+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.

Jacksonville Human Rights Commission


LGBT Attitudinal Awareness Survey

Public Opinion Research Laboratory University of North Florida

October 31, 2008


Principal Investigator: Paul G. Harwood, Director of the Public Opinion Research Laboratory Report Authors: Mark A. Swanhart, Assistant Director Paul G. Harwood, Director Nicholas Seaton, Research Associate Contact information: Public Opinion Research Laboratory University of North Florida 1 UNF Drive Jacksonville, FL 32224 Tel: 904-620-4433

Report

______________________________________________________________

Public Opinion Research Laboratory Contents

Summary of Findings.................................................................................................... 3 Workplace Issues .......................................................................................................... 5 Housing ......................................................................................................................... 8 Discrimination............................................................................................................. 11 Cultural Issues and Morality....................................................................................... 14 Demographics ............................................................................................................. 19 Survey Methodology................................................................................................... 21

University of North Florida

______________________________________________________________

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

I. Summary of Findings
From October 13 through October 16, 2008, the Public Opinion Research Laboratory at the University of North Florida conducted a survey consisting of 512 telephone interviews with Jacksonville adults. This survey asked respondents questions pertaining to issues relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) community in Jacksonville. Specifically, this survey was designed to measure opinions on employment, housing issues, and moral and cultural issues pertaining to sexual minorities. In terms of employment issues, the poll finds that: The vast majority of respondents agree with the statement that individuals should be treated equally, regardless of their race, age, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Some 86% strongly agree that individuals should receive equal treatment at work regardless of their sexual orientation [Table 1]. Regarding affirmative action programs, most respondents believe that a preference in hiring African-Americans is a practice that discriminates against whites [Table 3].

On housing issues for sexual minorities, the poll finds that: Around three quarters of respondents (73.5%) report that they would be equally comfortable having a single lesbian or a single heterosexual woman as a neighbor. About 24% report they would be more comfortable with a single heterosexual woman as a neighbor [Table 4]. For other groups, the results are similar. 74% of respondents report that they would be equally comfortable with a physically disabled or an able bodied person as a neighbor; 84% report being equally comfortable with a white man or a black man, and 47% respond similarly when asked to choose between a single 25 year old and a single 45 year old [Table 4].

For discrimination issues: The majority of respondents (59.5%) view race relations as either excellent or good [Table 8]. Similarly, nearly one third viewed the level of prejudice toward lesbians and gays as non-existent. Some 58% report that the level of prejudice against lesbians and gays is low [Table 9].

University of North Florida

______________________________________________________________ Regarding moral and cultural issues: A plurality of respondents in the survey (46.4%) report that the constitution should not be amended to define marriage. Furthermore, about 14% believe that the constitution should be amended to define a marriage as extending to a man and a woman, plus gay and lesbian relationships. Forty percent believe that the constitution should be amended to define a marriage as extending only to relationships between a man and a woman [Table 12]. When asked to gauge their feelings about celebrities, over 8 out of 10 respondents reported positive feelings about Elton John and Angelina Jolie celebrities that are sexual minorities. Similarly, over seventy percent responded positively to Ellen DeGeneres. Of the celebrities that are sexual minorities, Rosie ODonnell received the least positive score, with 31% responding favorably. Of all the celebrities mentioned in the survey, Paris Hiltona heterosexualreceived the least positive rating, with just 18% reporting a positive perception. This indicates that factors other than sexual orientation impact respondent perception [Table 13]. Although some 9 out of 10 (86.2%) respondents reported that prejudice against lesbians and gays is either non-existent, or low, nearly one quarter of all respondents (23.4%) agreed with the statement that a heterosexual person is more moral than a homosexual person [Table 14]. Labels matter. Fewer respondents agreed with the morality statement when the words straight and gay were substituted for heterosexual and homosexual. More respondents also disagreed with the statement, a straight person is more moral than a gay person compared to the statement, a heterosexual person is more moral than a homosexual person [Table 14 and Table 15].

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Other factors to consider: The single largest factor in explaining differences in perception of the LGBT community is whether or not the respondent has a lesbian or gay friend. Respondents with gay or lesbian friends were: 1) more likely to agree that people should receive equal treatment in the workplace regardless of their sexual orientation; 2) more likely to report being equally comfortable with either a lesbian or a heterosexual female as a neighbor; 3) more likely to report a high level of discrimination against lesbians and gays; and 4) more likely to disagree with the statement that a heterosexual is more moral than a homosexual, compared with their counterparts without lesbian or gay friends.

University of North Florida

______________________________________________________________

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

II. Workplace Issues


Overall, respondents report agreement with the statements regarding workplace equality. Nearly 100% of respondents report that people should receive equal treatment regardless of their race, age, disability, or gender. About 95% of respondents report agreement with equality regarding sexual orientation, with 86% reporting that they strongly agree. Table 1: People should receive equal treatment in the workplace, whatever their: [Q2a, Q2b, Q2c, Q4a, Q4b] Strongly agree 96.4 85.2 86.2 72.9 95.3 Somewhat agree 3.2 12.6 8.5 17.1 2.9 Somewhat disagree 0.0 1.7 4.0 8.1 1.2 Strongly disagree 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.9 0.6

Race Age Sexual orientation Disability Gender

Although the vast majority of respondents agreed with the statement that people should receive equal treatment in the workplace regardless of their sexual orientation, there was some variation across certain groups. Respondents that reported having a sexual minority as a friend were more likely to agree with this statement than those that reported not having a sexual minority as a friend (96.2% vs. 91.8%). This represents a statistically significant relationship. In addition, females were more likely to report agreement with the statement, compared to their male counterparts (96.9% vs. 92.2%).

University of North Florida

______________________________________________________________ Table 2: Equal treatment in the workplace regardless of sexual orientation [Q.2c] crosstabulation
Age (P=.257) Agree 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older 96.8 95.7 91.5 95.0 98.6 91.5 100.0 93.8 96.1 95.6 89.6 96.4 93.1 93.3 96.6 97.8 94.2 94.6 95.0 96.9 91.8 91.7 94.7 93.4 96.6 100.0 83.3 92.5 96.9 96.2 91.8 95.6 94.9 Disagree 3.2 4.3 8.5 5.0 1.4 8.5 0.0 6.2 3.9 4.4 10.4 3.6 6.9 6.7 3.4 2.2 5.8 5.4 5.0 3.1 8.2 8.3 5.3 6.6 3.4 0.0 16.7 7.5 3.1 3.8 8.2 4.4 5.1

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Education (P=.292)

Grade school High school graduate Some college College graduate Post graduate degree Length of time at address (P=.737) Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years Registered to vote (P=.597) Yes No Party affiliation (P=.082) Democrat Republican Other Race/ethnicity (P=.557) White Black or African-American Hispanic Asian Other Gender (P=.021) Male Female Has gay/lesbian friend (P=.033) Yes No Has gay/lesbian family member (P=.467) Yes No

University of North Florida

______________________________________________________________ Although the overwhelming majority of respondents report that people should receive equal treatment in the workplace whatever their race, half of the sample report that preference in hiring and promoting African-Americans is discriminatory towards whites. Only 12.5% of respondents reported that blacks should be given preference in hiring and promotion due to past discrimination. Table 3: Some people say that because of past discrimination, blacks should be given preference in hiring and promotion. Others say that such a preference in hiring and promotion of blacks is wrong because it discriminates against white. What about you? [Q.3] Blacks should be given preference in hiring due to past discrimination Preference in hiring blacks discriminates against whites NeitherVOLUNTEERED 12.5 50.0 37.6

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

University of North Florida

______________________________________________________________

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

III. Housing
When given alternatives for possible neighbors, most respondents reported that they would be equally comfortable having either alternative as their neighbor. The biggest variation for these questions was centered on age. For this question, respondents were less likely to volunteer that they would be equally comfortable with either a 25 year old or a 45 year old single person living next door to them. The second-largest variation for this group of questions appears when examining the choice between a single lesbian versus a single heterosexual woman. Most respondents that had an opinion (23.9%) reported that they would prefer to have a single heterosexual woman living next door. Table 4: Respondent preference for neighbors Physically disabled Able bodied person Equally comfortable (Volunteered) White man Black man Equally comfortable (Volunteered) Single lesbian Single heterosexual woman Equally comfortable (Volunteered) Single 25 year old Single 45 year old Equally comfortable (Volunteered) 5.4 20.5 74.0 10.3 6.0 83.6 2.6 23.9 73.5 9.3 43.7 47.0

Although most respondents report being equally comfortable with a single female or a lesbian as a neighbor, there is some variation between groups. As with the employment question, having a gay or lesbian friend is an important indicator as to how a respondent will answer the question regarding neighbors. Respondents that report having a friend that is a sexual minority are three times as likely to prefer a lesbian neighbor (3.5% vs. 1.1%). Perhaps more importantly, those with a gay or lesbian friend are more likely to report being equally comfortable with either a lesbian or heterosexual female as a neighbor (78.6%), compared to those that do not have a gay or lesbian friend (62.6%).

University of North Florida

______________________________________________________________ Table 5: Preference for a heterosexual female or lesbian as a neighbor [Q.5c] crosstabulation
Single lesbian 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older 9.7 0.0 1.0 4.1 2.7 1.4 14.3 4.8 0.6 3.8 1.5 0.0 4.2 1.0 1.8 4.5 1.5 2.3 5.3 3.1 1.1 0.0 1.4 3.4 3.4 17.6 0.0 0.8 4.4 3.5 1.1 3.8 1.6 Single heterosexual 30.6 19.4 25.5 21.4 16.4 31.9 0.0 25.7 21.3 21.4 34.3 30.9 25.6 23.8 12.5 15.9 30.3 23.9 24.6 19.9 29.4 14.7 23.7 25.7 31.0 0.0 20.0 23.4 24.2 17.9 36.2 19.9 27.1 Equally comfortable 59.7 80.6 73.5 74.5 80.8 66.7 85.7 69.5 78.1 74.8 64.2 69.1 70.2 75.2 85.7 79.5 68.2 73.9 70.2 77.0 69.5 85.3 74.9 70.9 65.5 82.4 80.0 75.8 71.4 78.6 62.6 76.3 71.3

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Age (P=.007)

Education (P=.034)

Grade school High school graduate Some college College graduate Post graduate degree Length of time at address (P=.171) Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years Registered to vote (P=.409) Yes No Party affiliation (P=.071) Democrat Republican Other Race/ethnicity (P=.004) White Black or African-American Hispanic Asian Other Gender (P=.043) Male Female Has gay/lesbian friend (P=.000) Yes No Has gay/lesbian family member (P=.084) Yes No

University of North Florida

______________________________________________________________ A large majority of respondents report having a gay or lesbian friend. Over 63% reported this. In addition, about one-third of respondents in this survey reported having a gay or lesbian family member. Table 6: Are any of your friends gay [Q.11a] Yes No 63.1 36.9

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Table 7: Are any of your family members gay [Q.12] Yes No 32.1 67.9

University of North Florida

10

______________________________________________________________

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

IV. Discrimination
In addition, when asked to rate race relations in their community, a majority of respondents (59.5%) viewed race relations as either excellent or good. About 41% reported less favorable race relations in their community, with 10% reporting race relations being poor. Table 8: Rating of race relations [Q.6] Excellent Good Fair Poor 18.4 41.1 30.6 9.9

Nearly one third of respondents interviewed for this survey (28.5%) reported that the level of prejudice toward lesbians and gays is non-existent. A further 58% reported that the level of prejudice against gays and lesbians is low. Only about 14% reported there being a high level of prejudice against lesbians and gays. Table 9: Level of prejudice against gays and lesbians [Q.9] Non-existent Low High 28.5 57.7 13.7

Once again, a statistically significant relationship exists between those who have a lesbian or gay friend and those who do not when examining opinions on prejudice. Those respondents that reported having a gay or lesbian friend were less likely to report there being a non-existent level of prejudice toward lesbians and gays. In addition, those with gay or lesbian friends are more likely to report there being a high level of prejudice than those who do not have a gay or lesbian friend (15.5% vs. 10.7%).

University of North Florida

11

______________________________________________________________ Table 10: Level of discrimination against lesbians and gays [Q.9] crosstabulation
Age (P=.059) Non-existent 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older 41.7 34.5 23.1 21.4 18.6 37.5 60.0 25.8 36.2 27.0 15.1 46.5 20.8 29.5 17.8 33.3 42.6 28.1 30.0 31.2 26.6 32.1 24.9 32.0 28.6 56.2 25.0 28.3 28.8 23.4 37.1 21.1 31.5 Low 46.7 54.8 57.1 63.1 67.8 54.2 20.0 58.4 52.3 63.1 58.5 46.5 58.4 56.8 71.1 57.1 51.1 57.2 62.0 48.8 63.3 57.1 60.8 56.2 42.9 43.8 59.9 55.3 61.2 52.1 61.3 57.0 High 11.7 10.7 19.8 15.5 13.6 8.3 20.0 15.7 11.4 9.8 26.4 7.0 20.8 13.7 11.1 9.5 6.4 14.7 8.0 20.0 10.1 10.7 14.3 11.7 28.6 0.0 25.0 11.8 15.8 15.5 10.7 17.6 11.5

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Education (P=.013)

Grade school High school graduate Some college College graduate Post graduate degree Length of time at address (P=.005) Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years Registered to vote (P=.437) Yes No Party affiliation (P=.054) Democrat Republican Other Race/ethnicity (P=.051) White Black or African-American Hispanic Asian Other Gender (P=.439) Male Female Has gay/lesbian friend (P=.010) Yes No Has gay/lesbian family member (P=.044) Yes No

University of North Florida

12

______________________________________________________________ There is a correlation between views on race relations and level of prejudice against sexual minorities. Those individuals who view race relations as excellent are also more likely to report that prejudice against lesbians and gays is either non-existent or low. In fact, as perception of race relations gets worse, respondents are less likely to report non-existent prejudice against lesbians and gays. Those individuals who report race relations being poor are the most likely to report a high level of prejudice against lesbians and gays. 31% of respondents that reported race relations as poor also reported that there is a high level of prejudice against lesbians and gays. Table 11: Rating of race relations [Q.6] and perceived level of prejudice against gays and lesbians [Q.9] cross tabulation Non-existent prejudice 32.9 32.5 25.8 14.3 Low prejudice 55.7 57.8 59.4 54.8 High prejudice 11.4 9.6 14.8 31.0

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Race relations are excellent Race relations are good Race relations are fair Race relations are poor P=.011

University of North Florida

13

______________________________________________________________

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

V. Cultural Issues and Morality


A plurality (46.4%) reported that the constitution should not be amended to define a marriage at all. Of those respondents that believe the constitution should be amended, a large majority believes that it should reflect marriage being solely between a man and a woman. Table 12: Should the constitution be amended to define marriage as extending only to a man and a woman, to relationships between men and women and gay and lesbian relationships, or should the constitution not be amended at all? [Q.8] Man and woman only Men and woman plus gay and lesbian relationships Not amended at all 40.0 13.6 46.4

Over 8 out of 10 respondents reported positive feelings about Elton John and Angelina Jolie. Seventy percent of those who had an opinion reported positively regarding Ellen DeGeneres. Of the celebrities that are sexual minorities, Rosie ODonnell received the least positive score, with 30.6% reporting positive feelings toward her. Paris Hilton received the least positive score out of all celebrities, with just 18% reporting positive perception. Table 13: Respondent perception of celebrities [Q1a to Q1i] Very positive James Dean Paris Hilton Elton John Angelina Jolie Ellen DeGeneres Jack Del Rio Oprah Winfrey Kobe Bryant Rosie ODonnell 21.2 3.9 31.0 31.8 25.6 46.2 48.1 20.3 7.3 Somewhat positive 64.2 14.3 52.4 50.1 44.8 45.3 31.1 40.8 23.3 Somewhat negative 12.4 38.3 12.8 13.2 18.5 6.7 14.1 29.7 33.5 Very negative 2.2 43.5 3.7 4.9 11.1 1.8 6.7 9.2 35.9

University of North Florida

14

______________________________________________________________ Although over 8 out of 10 (86.2%) of respondents reported prejudice against gays and lesbians as either non-existent or low, nearly one-quarter of respondents (23.4%) reported agreement with the statement that a heterosexual person is more moral than a homosexual person. Table 14: Heterosexual person more moral than a homosexual person [Q.10a] Split-ballot; half of respondents received 10a, and half received 10b Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree 5.8 17.6 29.5 47.1

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Having a gay or lesbian friend or family member is a determinant in how respondents view the morality of sexual minorities. Over one-third of respondents who do not have a gay or lesbian friend reported agreement with the statement that heterosexuals are more moral than homosexuals. Of those respondents with a gay or lesbian friend, 17% responded similarly. Likewise, a statistically significant relationship exists between those with and without a gay or lesbian family member with respect to their opinions on morality. Those without a gay or lesbian family member are nearly twice as likely as those with a gay or lesbian family member (27.3% to 14.6%) to agree with the statement that heterosexuals are more moral than homosexuals. In addition, respondents that have lived at their current address for more than 20 years are more likely to agree with this statement than those who have lived at their address for shorter periods of time. Over one quarter (26.2%) of registered voters agreed with this statement, compared to just 4% of individuals not registered to vote. AfricanAmericans were statistically more likely to report agreement with the statement that heterosexuals are more moral than homosexuals. Finally, males were more likely than females to agree with the statement (28.7% vs. 18% of females).

University of North Florida

15

______________________________________________________________ Table 15: A heterosexual person is more moral than a homosexual person [Q.10a] crosstabs
Age (P=.159) Agree 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older 35.9 22.9 21.7 10.0 26.9 28.0 0.0 20.5 26.6 18.0 35.3 21.4 25.8 18.8 17.4 6.2 46.2 26.2 3.6 26.2 28.9 14.3 20.4 36.5 13.3 0.0 0.0 28.7 18.0 17.3 35.3 14.6 27.3 Disagree 64.1 77.1 78.3 90.0 73.1 72.0 100.0 79.5 73.4 82.0 64.7 78.6 74.2 81.2 82.6 93.8 53.8 73.8 96.4 73.8 71.1 85.7 79.6 63.5 86.7 100.0 100.0 71.3 82.0 82.7 64.7 85.4 72.7

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Education (P=.279)

Grade school High school graduate Some college College graduate Post graduate degree Length of time at address (P=.045) Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years Registered to vote (P=.004) Yes No Party affiliation (P=.510) Democrat Republican Other Race/ethnicity (P=.030) White Black or African-American Hispanic Asian Other Gender (P=.037) Male Female Has gay/lesbian friend (P=.002) Yes No Has gay/lesbian family member (P=.020) Yes No

University of North Florida

16

______________________________________________________________ For this version of the question, fewer respondents reported agreement with the statement that straight persons are more moral than gay persons. Just under 17% agreed with the statement that a straight person is more moral than a gay person, compared with 23.4% that reported agreement with the statement that a heterosexual person is more moral than a homosexual person. Table 16: Straight person more moral than a gay person [Q.10b] Split-ballot; half of respondents received 10a, and half received 10b Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree 11.4 5.4 30.0 53.2

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Likewise, this version of the question yielded variation when examining respondents across demographic groups. For this question, respondent party affiliation was a statistically significant factor in respondent views on morality. Ten percent of respondents that reported supporting Democratic candidates agreed with the statement than a straight person is more moral than a gay person, compared with 32.1% of respondents that reported supporting Republican candidates. Interestingly, the presence of a gay or lesbian friend or family member did not yield statistically significant results for the respondents that were asked this version of the question. The results of this split ballot question indicate that the terms one uses to describe members of a sexual minority matter. Overall, fewer respondents agreed with the morality statement when the words straight and gay were used to describe groups, and more respondents also disagreed when these words were used. This is true when examining data across demographic groups as well.

University of North Florida

17

______________________________________________________________ Table 17: Straight person more moral than a gay person [Q.10b] crosstabs
Age (P=.734) Agree 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older 15.4 12.5 25.0 12.5 16.7 19.4 0.0 26.5 6.5 20.0 13.8 19.0 14.5 30.0 11.5 10.0 8.7 17.9 8.3 10.0 32.1 6.7 20.4 12.3 25.0 0.0 50.0 16.8 17.2 13.9 23.1 12.3 19.8 Disagree 84.6 87.5 75.0 87.5 83.3 80.6 100.0 73.5 93.5 80.0 86.2 81.0 85.5 70.0 88.5 90.0 91.3 82.1 91.7 90.0 67.9 93.3 79.6 87.7 75.0 100.0 50.0 83.2 82.8 86.1 76.9 87.7 80.2

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Education (P=.050)

Grade school High school graduate Some college College graduate Post graduate degree Length of time at address (P=.180) Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years Registered to vote (P=.193) Yes No Party affiliation (P=.001) Democrat Republican Other Race/ethnicity (P=.223) White Black or African-American Hispanic Asian Other Gender (P=.552) Male Female Has gay/lesbian friend (P=.086) Yes No Has gay/lesbian family member (P=.134) Yes No

University of North Florida

18

______________________________________________________________

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

VI. Demographics
Table 18: Age [D1] 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older Table 19: Education [D2] Grade school High school graduate Some college College graduate Post graduate degree 1.5 22.3 36.0 26.7 13.5 12.1 18.2 20.9 20.0 14.7 14.1

Table 20: Length of time at current address [D3] Less than a year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years 10.9 34.3 20.9 11.4 8.9 13.6

Table 21: Parent or guardian of a child 18 or younger [D4] Yes No Table 22: Registered to vote [D5] Yes No 88.1 11.9 40.6 59.4

University of North Florida

19

______________________________________________________________ Table 23: Political party affiliation [D6] Democrat Republican Other Table 24: Race or ethnicity [D7] White Black or African American Hispanic Asian Other 59.6 30.2 5.7 3.4 1.1 47.2 44.3 8.5

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

Table 25: Total household income in 2007 [D8] Less than $20,000 $20,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $75,000 $75,0001 to $100,000 More than $100,000 16.0 29.6 20.0 16.9 17.5

Table 26: Are you gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered? [D9] Noheterosexual/straight Bisexual Homosexual/gay/lesbian Transgendered Table 27: Respondent gender [D10] Male Female 49.3 50.7 96.4 1.5 1.9 0.2

University of North Florida

20

______________________________________________________________

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

VII. Survey Methodology


The Jacksonville Human Rights Commission LGBT Issues Survey received survey responses from 512 Jacksonville residents. The survey was conducted by the Public Opinion Research Laboratory at the University of North Florida. The interviews were done in English from October 13 through October 16, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the entire sample is 4.33%. Margin of error is higher for cross tabulations. Sample Design The telephone samples were provided by Genesys Sampling Systems at Marketing Systems Group. The sample was drawn using standard list-assisted random digit dialing (RDD) methodology. Procedure Interviews were conducted from October 13 through October 16, 2008. As many as 6 attempts were made to contact every sampled telephone number. The sample is released in replicatesrepresentative subsamples of the larger sample. Analysis Respondent gender, race, and age were weighted to statistics from the 2000 Census. Responses Do not know and Refused were removed for analysis. Due to rounding, some percentages may vary. Small scale changes in responses can be seen between groups when examining various survey responses. By contrast, statistical significance between groups is achieved when there is a strong likelihood (at least 95%), that the variation between groups was caused by there being a difference in the actual responses between groups, rather than the variation being caused by chance. When this relationship exists, the P value will be less than or equal to .05, indicating that there is a 5% chance or less that differences between groups was caused by chance. For example, a P value of .003 would indicate that there is less than a 0.3% probability that the difference between groups was caused simply by chance.

University of North Florida

21

______________________________________________________________ Sample Disposition The table below illustrates the disposition coding for all sampled telephone numbers dialed in Duval County, Florida for this survey. Sample Disposition
Total Numbers Dialed Business Computer/Fax Cell phone Other non working Working Numbers Working Rate (%) 7114 274 574 51 1277 4938 69.4 1061 342 1681 272 12 1570 31.8 1018 552 54.2 3 7 n/a 542 98.2 30 512 94.5

Public Opinion Research Laboratory

No Answer Busy Answering Machine Callbacks Other Non-Contacts Contacted numbers Contact Rate (%) Refusals Cooperating Numbers Cooperation Rate (%) No Adult in HH Language Barrier Ineligible by Screener Question Eligible Numbers Eligibility Rate (%) Interrupted Completes Completion Rate (%)

University of North Florida

22