Single Page
Will Anchorage voters grant civil rights protections to LGBT community?Editor's note: The following commentary was first published by Seattle's The Stranger and is republished here with permission. Thirty-five years -- that's how long they've been fighting for basic civil rights protections up here in Anchorage, Alaska. The city and county governments of Anchorage combined into one body in 1976 -- the Municipality of Anchorage -- and the new Assembly put together an equal rights ordinance that covered race, sex, religion, marital status, and "sexual preference." Anchorage's 11-member Assembly approved the new Equal Rights Ordinance unanimously. Then Dr. Jerry Prevo, pastor of the Anchorage Baptist Temple, organized a campaign to pressure the mayor into deleting the protections for sexual preference from the ordinance. Prevo then went after the assemblymembers and managed to scare enough off that there weren't enough votes to override the mayor and restore "sexual preference" to Anchorage's Equal Rights Ordinance. In 1992/1993 the city tried again -- but this time the Equal Rights Ordinance only covered municipal employees. It was approved by the Assembly and signed into law by the mayor. But Jerry Prevo organized the opposition, ran haters against the assembly members who had approved the law, and Prevo's new Assembly repealed the Equal Rights Ordinance. In 2009 the city tried again: Ordinance 64 -- an equal rights bill that covered "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression" -- was taken up by the Anchorage Assembly. Dr. Jerry Prevo once again led the opposition, this time with a reach-around from Jim Minnery of the Alaska Family Council. Anchorage's acting mayor had pledged to sign the bill into law so the Prevo and Minnery did all they could to delay passage. They bused people to Anchorage from Wasilla -- remember Wasilla? -- and from bible camps outside of Anchorage to testify against the bill, drawing testimony out for weeks. The anti folks testified that they would never hire or rent to gays or lesbians and then turned around and argued that there was no need for the law because gays and lesbians aren't discriminated against. The Assembly approved Ordinance 64 by a 7-4 vote. But Prevo and Minnery had successfully run out the clock: Anchorage had a new mayor -- Dan Sullivan -- and he vetoed the Ordinance 64. The Assembly didn't have the eight votes needed to override the mayor's veto. The LGBT community in Anchorage -- sick of waiting for basic civil rights protections -- decided to put an equal rights initiative on the ballot. One Anchorage needed to gather 5,871 signatures to qualify; they quickly gathered 13,600 signatures. Voters in Anchorage will say "yes" or "no" to Proposition 5 on April 3. The mayor and city council don't have the power to veto or rescind a voter-approved initiative. So if voters here approve Prop. 5, Anchorage will finally -- after 35 years -- have an equal rights law that protects LGBT citizens. One Anchorage reps say that the polling numbers look good and that this has a real chance of passage. The language of the initiative includes a massive carveout for religious organizations and churches. If a church wanted to fire a janitor who was gay, the law wouldn't prevent that church from firing their cocksucking janitor. But the religious bigots -- Prevo and Minnery -- are arguing that this special right to discriminate against LGBT people doesn't go far enough. (And it is a special right: religious groups and individuals in Anchorage are not allowed to discriminate against women, racial minorities, Jewish people, the disabled, the elderly, etc., etc., even if they believe -- sincerely! religiously! -- that women shouldn't work outside the home, people be allowed to marry outside their race, the Jews are going to hell, etc., etc.) One Anchorage reps are bracing themselves for the inevitable fear-mongering that will target trans people and the trans-inclusive language in their initiative. When similar initiatives were on the ballot in in Kalamazoo, Mich., and Gainesville, Fla., the haters ran television ads at the last minute that showed men following little girls into public restrooms and distributed flyers with pictures of men in dresses that said the law would "require" schools to hire these men to teach your children. Those ads are coming to Anchorage. Voters in Kalamazoo and Gainesville extended civil rights protections to their LGBT citizens because the pro-gay campaigns in those cities were able to get on TV with ads calling bullshit on the haters and refuting their lies. To combat the inevitable, last-minute anti-gay/anti-trans hate campaign, One Anchorage is raising money to get television ads on the air up here in the last weeks of the campaign. They're asking people to consider donating $35 -- one dollar for each year that Anchorage has been fighting for equality and basic civil rights protections. (There are no limits on campaign donations for initiatives up here, so if you're moved to donate $350 or $3,500 or $3,500,000, please don't hesitate.) There's also the 35/35/35 Club: Ask 35 friends to donate $35 each. You can set up your own page at One Anchorage and you'll get a fundraising thermometer of your very own! We scored major victories in California and Washington state this week. But the LGBT community in Anchorage is still struggling to achieve the most basic civil rights protections. The LGBT community in Alaska needs this victory -- Alaska is the only state in the nation that has never had an openly gay elected official; there are no statewide laws that protect LGBT people; there is no anti-LGBT hate-crimes legislation up here; there are no domestic-partnership registries of any kind anywhere in the state. The LGBT community up here needs this victory and they need our support. Dan Savage is a nationally syndicated sex advice columnist and author of four books, most recently 2011's It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living. In 2010, Savage and his husband started the It Gets Better Project to help prevent the suicide of LGBT young people. The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch. Alaska Dispatch welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com. Case in point if you have a business and you want to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, then vote no. If not then this law will be abused and used as a sledge hammer to extort what they call "bigotry" fines from you in the form of lawsuits. Might as well close Same will be said of liberal asses that refuse service to republican commentators that stand up for ones rights. Pretty simple, refuse service for no shoes no shirt no service, oh thats discriminating against the poor cause they cant afford shoes... These people are free to live and work in environments that support their ways already. What they want is to be allowed to force their way into our schools, into our churches, and into our faces. Proclaiming on high their unnatural choices of worshiping the sins of flesh as normal. Forcing it down peoples throat till they are accepted and can openly fornicate in the open. CLUE to you. NO ONE SHOULD BE FORNICATING IN THE OPEN EVER! REGARDLESS OF STRAIGHT OR QUEER! Its just as bad with our society what were doing to young people already making them sex object younger and younger, encouraging them to loose their virginity as young as grade school. And worse with the encouragement of married people to divorce and raise their children in single parent homes with sexual partners in and out of lives of children as if life is but a revolving door. Thus teaching their children to use women as sex toys and throw them away when bored with them. The last final thing they want is to filthily the sanctity of marriage under the church. they all ready have legalized unions that provide them the protections under the law to have shared incomes and tax benefits... but thats not enough. No they want to be able to FORCE religion to recognize them and give their personal choices a blessing. To "MARRY" in a church that finds their choices repulsive and amoral. Indeed an abomination. Amoral people justifying their choices and forcing it in the faces of moral people and saying were here, were queer, get used to it by stating they are born this way. EVEN IF THEY ARE, they choose to pursue their sexuality and proclaim it and flaunt it. Sorry. I would rather close and not provide employment or services to anyone then to be forced to endure what I have moral objection to. I have a right just as you to speak exist and walk away... You can walk away as well. thats freedom. what you want is totalitarianism. In that if I walk away from you I am forced to turn around and bend knee before your choice and be forced to give credence to that choice. There are still MORAL people in this world. people that dont bend to sins of the flesh and sleep with anything and everything that moves. people that raise their children to respect themselves and their private lives as PRIVATE. What your wanting with this law makes it everyone's business what you choose to have sex with. No matter how sick and amoral it may be. And have the public be FORCED to accept that. Congratulations. you just made it legal for child sex offenders to SUE to live anywhere they want. Thats how far this law will be pushed. Thats what your amoral attitude about something that should remain out of the public eye and forcing in peoples faces to satisfy your desire to be socially acceptable for your sexual choices has made possibile. I guarantee if one walks into a restaurant and find a man crossdressing in a skirt attempting to serve them no one I know of is going to stay in such a place. So this law will make it illegal for an employer to say sorry your not right for our business, and be forced to watch that customer walk away... And that cross dresser will sue that employer if 1: not hired, or 2: fired. If more people kept their sexual desires in check we would be a better people today. Both hetro and homo sexual. What you choose to go putting your thing into and how often is the biggest part of the problem in our society. If people properly followed a moral faith they would not be doing such things unless it was to procreate a child. But no its all about sexual perversions and pleasures in our society. This is why we have problems of sexual exploitation of children, rampant child abuse and neglect, people running like wild animals screwing anything and everything that moves, massive spreads of sexual diseases, out of control overpopulation, unmarried abandoned women with unwanted children, 1 in every 3 children from a broken home from divorce. And worse... All for the decline of morals and the choices we as a people have allowed to continue to be forced upon us as "normal and acceptable." The queers and cross dressers demanding the special privilege status for their choices. God help us all if you get them, cause it will never end with just you... it will continue. People need to learn to keep their sexuality PRIVATE. Its between you, your lover, and your god. in the end we all die alone and fade to nothing. God doesnt care what you do, humanity is nothing but a parasite. Eventually he will take from it what he wants and exterminate the rest. Personally I dont care either way. I live a moral life and I will never marry or have children. To bring any life into this world is repugnant. Happily I am more then ready to die and fade into nothingness or burn in hell for all eternity. Much to the pleasure of the readers of this blog/paper/media. Either way just get it over with already. What such people have made of this world, this country, everything. its all disgusting. like walking in sewage every day. I am not looking for arguments or hate, I am simply looking for an explanation. What civil rights protections are currently not afforded the LGBT community in Alaska? I enjoy reading Dan Savage's advice column. He is a strong voice in the LGBT community and has given courage to alot of young people who are afraid or uncertain of how to be comfortable with their own sexual orientation. I have personally experienced the loss of friends who took their own lives because of the social stigma of being LGBT. It is a pain that no one should have in the "Land of the Free". At the same time, Savage might be considered a bit radical and I don't necessarily find radical to be the best approach to legislation from any side. So, back to my original query, what civil rights are currently not provided the LGBT community? 1. Marriage to another LGBT member (which is terribly discriminatory). -TomClark Without getting too hung up on what the definition of a "civil right" is, folks in Anchorage can be fired due to their sexual orientation and can be evicted from their apartment due to their sexual orientation. This initiative would disallow such actions. I would like to believe that such a law would never be necessary, but the opposition to such a law suggests to me that it probably is necessary. Skeptic, The point is people get discriminated against for many things and the reason provided is seldom for the actual reason--the fact a boss doesn't like you. I don't really understand how this legislation is supposed to help. One thing it will do is prevent an employer from firing a problematic or lazy or incompetent worker IF that employee happens to be a member of the LGBT community because the employee will immediately say it was due to their sexual orientation and not the fact they showed up late every day. As a landlord, I have a hard time imagining that many property owners are going to throw out a responsible tenant who pays their rent on time and is quiet and respectful simply because they don't like what he/she does in the bedroom...but I don't doubt it could happen. Back when I used to rent, I would sometimes move out of a rental property because I didn't like the landlord...seems fair that a landlord should have the right to do the same. I guess what concerns me about any type of legislation that selects one group or minority for special privilege is that the same safeguards are not in place for everyone else. I would consider it no different than this current practice of only letting marriage exist between a man and a woman. It does not treat all Americans equal--it gives special privilege to one group. So the ax swings both ways. Just my opinion. Thanks for responding. -TomClark Tom: As you point out, this law won't have much in the way of teeth. I support it mostly because it is a just rule, even though I realize that it is a rule which bigots will continue to ignore. Skeptic, If it takes legislation to get people to act that way once again...then so be it. -TomClark I would like to challenge the author of this piece to list one instance of discrimination against LGPT people and allow the so called discriminator to respond. You can be against this law and not be a 'hater' or 'bigot'. A link to One Anchorage (other than donation forms) would have been helpful. |
Comments