| Transcript |
Tuesday, June 19, 1984, was a memorable day for gay rights in the city of Houston. The Houston C i ly
Council by a 8 to 7 vote passed amendments to two city ordinances in order to prohibit discrimination
against city employees and contractors on the basis of sexual orientation. NOW has long had a policy of
support for lesbian and gay rights. Judi Hoffman and Diane Berg, co-chairs of the Texas MOW Tank
Force on Lesbian Rights, were at the meeting. Although the ordinances passed, the report from Judi on
the mood and attitude of the crowd that gathered was frightening. Somehow a crowd that chooses to
sing "Onward Christian Soldiers", "God Bless America", and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and then
shout over and over,
contradiction there.
># "DEATH TO ALL HOMOSEXUALS" makes
The hate was overwhelming at city
Greanias, Rodney Ellis, Dale Gorczynski, Anthony Hall,
Kathy Whitmire deserve our
thing so much better than
support
I can.
one believe that there must be some type of
hall. Council-persons Ernest McGowen, George
Elinor Tinsley, Judson Robinson and Mayor
and thanks. The following letter to the Houston Post says every-
Edltor'B note: On Tuesday, The
Houston Post ran an editorial
against city legislation barring city
job discrimination based on sexual
orientation. The following article is a
reply to that editorial.
By THOMAS J. COLEMAN JR.
On Tuesday, the Houston City
Council passed amendments to two
city ordinances in order to prohibit
discrimination against city employees and contractors on the basis of
sexual orientation. The amendments
do not affect private employers, but
rather are a codification of executive orders, concerning city employment that have been in effect since
the administration of Mayor Jim
McConn. They were carefully drafted to eliminate any possibility that
they might be used for the establishment of goals or quotas for gays and
lesbians.
These amendments were introduced in December 1983 and were
duly reported by the Houston media.
They were extensively considered
and discussed by the City Council
and the public for two weeks.
However, a last-minute, well-organized and well-financed campaign
of misinformation, innuendo and vicious attacks against homosexuals
was conducted in an attempt to delay and defeat the amendments. A
bank president paid for two large
newspaper advertisements comparing gays and lesbians with public
drunks. The chairman of the Harris
County Republican Party dredged
up and trumpeted the long-disproved
myth that homosexuals recruit.
And members oi me council, especially those who supported the
amendments, were subjected to
what Councilwoman Eleanor Tinsley
called a "sad and dangerous outpouring of hatred." Indeed, the
council found it difficult even to conduct a discussion on the amendments the day of its vote due to the
hostile shouts from a crowd constituted primarily of religious fanatics,
members of the Ku Klux Klan and
others who actively seek not only to
discriminate against gays and lesbians, but against other traditionally
persecuted minority groups as well.
Backers carried vote
Despite these tardy but obvious
attempts at intimidation, the seven
council members who had previously pledged their support for the
amendments, along with Mayor
Kathy Whitmire, remained steadfast, securing passage.
On the day of the vote, The Houston Post printed an editorial entitled
"Pressure Politics," taking the srtde
of those who opposed the amendments. This commentary, like those
of the others who opposed the
amendments, was based on faulty
assumptions and ignored the real
problems that must be faced when
considering, confronting and dealing
with this issue in a truly conscientious manner.
The editorial began by expressing
outrage that the Gay Political Caucus could be in a position to influence and persuade the council to
secure equality and dignity for gays
and lesbians in city government. No
attention was given to those who
spent thousands of dollars and en-
en*nf\A In •» p.iwnftl"m t\f Intontlrmil
distortion and intimidation to obtain
a Jast-minute change in the council
vote.
' Gays have been active In city poll-
tics, working legitimately within the
system, for many years. Our program has never been changed: We
seek legal protection from irrational
discrimination, not special favors.
Those council members who pledged
their support for legal equality for
gays and lesbians did so voluntarily,
when they were first questioned on
these matters, not because they
were "pressured." At one time,
council members Christin Hartung,
JTphn Goodner and Ben Reyes agreed
S> support this type of equal protects but, in the end, did not.
v The real issue here is not one of
"pressure politics" but of political
integrity. I And it most hypocritical
that someone should gladly seek and
accept gay support, in whatever
form, in order to be elected and then,
once elected, find it more expedient
to use deliberate distortion, fear and
misinformation to attack that very
support. A question that other political groups should ask themselves is
when it will become expedient to attack them.
The question of choice
However, in the final analysis,
this type of political decision stands
or falls on its merits. And it is on the
merits that The Post made the most
fundamental misstatement — that a
person may be bom of a certain race
or gender but ". . .to become gay
was his or her freedom of choice in
America," — thus, any anti-gay discrimination is voluntary on the part
of the person on whom it is inflicted.
First, the mere fact that someone
Is born black or a ytoman rather
than "becoming" gay makes no difference as concerns the Irrational
prejudice that all these groups have
historically suffered from. Second, in
23 states, one Is not "free" to "become gay." To do so is to attain the
status of a criminal. In Texas, we
are no longer criminals only because
of a recent successful court challenge to Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" statute. This case remains on
appeal due to the efforts of two anti-
gay groups in Dallas. They have
spent at least $50,000 in legal fees to
turn approximately 1 million Texas
residents back into criminals and
cast us back onto the rubbish heap of
second-class citizenship.
Most distressing, however, is The
Post's opinion that people somehow
"choose" to be gay, as they would
choose whether to drink whiskey or
drive a foreign car. In fact, the great
bulk of scientific evidence holds that
sexual orientation is determined before the age of Ave, long before one
has the ability to "choose" much of
anything. To make comparisons of
this sort is to trivialize a characteristic that is innate and personal, and
only serves to encourage further
misunderstanding.
Finally, contrary to The Post's
stated position, there is a real need
for these amendments. The opponents to these amendments intentionally Ignore documentation already on file when they assert that
there is no discrimination against
gays In city government. Indeed,
they are actively advocating establishment of legal discrimination in
hiring in some departments. Without
these amendments, a city employee
Pt
is required to maKe a teaeral case
out of this type of discrimination. In
the context of governmental employment, the case of Gary Van Oo-
teghem is illustrative. Van Oo-
teghem, a former Harris County
employee, sued the county for loss of
his job due to the fact that he is gay
and publicly supported gay rights.
Despite a clear finding of a violation of Van Ooteghem's constitutional rights of free speech, as determined by dozens of judges who have
reviewed the case, It remains in
court after nine years of litigation,
having been twice appealed to the
United State Supreme Court by the
county, with another appeal
promised.
Endless court battles
! Clearly these claims could be handled more quickly and inexpensively, for the aggrieved party and for
the taxpayer — through the local
civil service, as provided for in these
amendments — than through endless
court battles.
In fact, the reason for the long
delays in resolving the Van Oo-
teghem case, as well as the strident
opposition to the Houston City ordinance amendments, is the same: It
is homophobia — the irrational fear
of homosexuals and homosexuality.
Regardless of the cause of homophobia — ignorance, religious fanaticism or anxiety about one's own sexual identity — the effect on
government employees is the same:'
justice delayed, Justice denied.
Considering the strident hostility
encountered by Mayor Whitmire and
the council members who supported
the amendments, their courageous
steadfast support should be appreciated by all who support human
rights and human dignity. To fall to
recognize the need for this sort of
legal protection is unconscionable.
To fall to take issue with the bigotry
and hatred that is all too apparent
from those who support this discrimination, regardless of who they
are, is inexcusable.
Cafaman, a local aftarnay, It a baard mambar af
tha Haastan Gay Political Caucus and a mtmbir af
C PAC, two political organliaflom that suppartad |
