Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 03:09:00 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Murphy March 20 was the tenth anniversary of the passage of the NYC "gay rights=20 bill." Having failed to interest the local rag in the attached op-ed=20 piece, I shall now take advantage of the self-publishing opportunities=20 afforded by the 'Net. :) Rob Murphy NYU Law School Ten Candles for Intro 2 Ten years ago this month, the New York City Council passed Intro 2. Popularly known as "the gay civil rights bill," the measure made it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing and public accommodations. Unremarkable as such a law seems in New York today, its passage, after a 15-year political struggle, was epochal. Few city laws have sparked the intensity of support and opposition that surrounded this bill from its first introduction in 1971.=20 The bill embodied the aspirations of gay people for equal citizenship, but from the other side drew sharp opposition on moral grounds =FE some sincere, much merely bigoted and ignorant. Political theater abounded. In earlier years, proponents picketed the homes of opponents on the Council and once released white mice inside City Hall to protest a committee's perennial failure to release the bill for a vote. As passage began to seem likely in 1986, opponents wore convicts' stripes to suggest that decent folk would be made criminals by the bill. Others droned Hail Marys while wearing placards wishing AIDS on the bill's proponents. In the galleries of the Council chamber, dozens of Orthodox rabbis jeered and turned their backs as Mayor Koch spoke in favor of the measure. On the night of the bill's passage, there was literally dancing in the streets at a huge celebration in Sheridan Square. =20 On this anniversary, a few observations are in order.=20 First, the law has succeeded. Not that there's been a flood of lawsuits, though victims of sexual-orientation discrimination have indeed sought and obtained relief under the law's provision.=20 Far more importantly, many employers have reformed their non-discrimination practices to comply with the city ordinance.=20 The communications giant MCI is a good example. An employee who was fired in 1988 for being gay filed a complaint under the New York City law. As part of the eventual settlement, MCI broadened its non-discrimination policies nationwide to specifically forbid sexual orientation discrimination. Most employers, fortunately, have changed their policies proactively, without pressure of litigation. The law has had a subtler beneficial effect. Although some gay conservative critics such as Andrew Sullivan argue that anti-discrimination bills perpetuate a sense of victimhood among gay people, my perception, here in New York, is quite the opposite. Though few of my friends will ever sue under the ordinance, simply knowing that the law is there to help if needed provides a huge measure of confidence as we pursue our careers, look for apartments, go out to eat and otherwise live as the New Yorkers we are. I also believe that the law has played a part in improving the tone, if you will, in workplaces and public places for all New Yorkers, straight and gay. By establishing a standard of fairness, it allows gays and straights to deal with each other more honestly, productively, and with more genuine friendship. Second, Intro 2 debunks the canard =FE so often still voiced throughout the country =FE that anti-discrimination laws create "special rights" for lesbians and gays. Formally an amendment to a city Human Rights Law that already prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age and marital status, Intro 2 merely offered the same protection against discrimination on the basis of an additional human characteristic. As Tom Stoddard, the bill's co-author, wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed in 1986: "The bill is a traditional civil rights measure, neither more nor less, and one squarely within the American conceptions of individual liberty and equality."=20 Moreover, the law applies symmetrically, protecting heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and straight employees have occasionally sought protection under it for discrimination against them by gay employers. Third, Intro 2's anniversary reminds us that, disgracefully, New York State has yet to enact a similar measure. The legislature should take a lesson from the success of Intro 2 and equivalent laws in nine states. A statewide non-discrimination law is long, long overdue. Finally, the history of Intro 2's passage highlights what is at stake in the Colorado "Amendment 2" case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Amendment 2 forbids, under the Colorado constitution, any political subdivision in that state from passing a law against sexual-orientation discrimination.=20 Amendment 2, in short, precludes an Intro 2. Any week now, the Court will tell us whether the U.S. Constitution permits such a restraint on the right of a certain group of people to accomplish local legal change on their own behalf. It took 15 years of intense local work to pass Intro 2 in New York City. Arduous as that battle was, at least it occurred in an open democratic system. Imagine instead the difficulty of mounting a campaign throughout an entire state to re-amend the constitution, simply in order to have the chance to enact a local ordinance. That's the political equivalent of Dorothy and her friends, having succeeded in their long, hard trip to Oz, being told by the Wizard that they must now bring back the witch's broomstick: an obstacle intended to be insurmountable. We live under a Constitution, not witches and wizards, and can only hope that the Supreme Court will refuse to allow such unfair burdens to be placed on the political rights of American citizens. Happy Birthday, Intro 2. You're a fine ten-year old, and New York City is proud of you.