Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 01:48:26 -0400
From: ac245@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Tina M. Wood)
Subject: Yesterday's hearing in RI


Here I am with my promised report on the Monday 5/15 RI Senate Special
Legislation Committee hearing on the sexual orientation civil rights
bill.

On the whole, I would say that it went well for our side.  Testimony
lasted *nine hours*, so it would be hard to summarize briefly.  I'll
try to touch on what I think is important.

One very bad thing that has me worried is that a number of legislators
seem to think that the ruling in the Cincinnati case would make this
proposed law unconstitutional.  A senator who has supported the bill
in the past testified about this and urged the committee to delay
consideration of this bill until the US Supreme Court decides the
appeal of this ruling!  I don't think that will happen, but I am
very concerned about the confusion this decision is causing.  The
RRR (radical religious right) here is doing all it can to add to
the misinformation and confusion.  I'm afraid that it may cause some
people of good will to vote no.  We did have two lawyers from our
side (one was the woman who was the Democratic candidate for governor
in the last election) testify about the decision and try to clear
things up.  Since the decision is so new, they did not have much
time to prepare.  Christine Nickerson, president of the RI Alliance
for L/G Civil Rights, testified about it at the very end of the
hearing.  She reported that the state attorney general would assure
them that the bill was constitutional, so that is a good sign.  One
of the committee members who is strongly on our side is also a
lawyer, so I'm sure he will speak about it to the full Senate.

The committee chair, Maryellen Goodwin, alternated the speakers 
between those for and against the bill.  At the House hearing, our
folks outnumbered those against it to such an extent that the other
side ran out of people about halfway through.  This time they brought
more people; we still managed to outlast them, but by only
about 5 or 6 people.  

Religion played a major role in much of the testimony.  The opposition
had a number of conservative Christian clergy speaking, but I think
we again had more clergy speaking for our side.  I am not positive about
this, but I think Episcopal clergy outnumbered clergy from any other
denomination.  I can recall a Canon (retired), two priests, and one
transitional deacon, and there may have been others as well.  Our 
side also had clergy from the American Baptists and the UCC.  A 
Unitarian minister was scheduled as well, but he had to leave.  We
also had a Catholic priest testify for us.  He read some statements
from various Catholic documents that sounded supportive of the bill.
I would almost say that his testimony was the most controversial of
all because so many people took issue with it.  Rhode Island is at
least 65% Catholic, so it was a big deal to a lot of people.  The
Catholic bishop of RI refuses to take a position on the bill, but
was quoted recently in the paper as saying that nothing in the bill
conflicted with Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.  One of the
speakers for the opposition found a statement from this bishop
from ten years ago about a similar bill for the city of Providence
that sounded condemnatory, but I think the statement in the paper
cancels that out in most people's minds.  Strangely, much was made
of the fact that the bill has an exemption for religious organizations.
A number of people speaking *against* the bill said that if this bill
is about protecting civil rights, then there should be no exceptions
in it!  They brought this up undoubtedly because taking out the
exemption would probably get some people to vote against it (not to
mention that any amendments could kill the bill at this point).  It
is really amazing to me how they will change their rhetoric to suit
whatever the situation is.  I am sure that if the bill did not have
a religious exemption, they would be begging for it!  Some of their
speakers indeed asked that that exemption cover *members* of religious
organizations too (which would be almost everybody).  

Sen. Maryellen Goodwin did a very good job chairing the meeting.  She
was fair to all speakers.  She maintained order.  She held everyone
to the same time limits.  As time went by, she asked certain senators
on the committee not to be so argumentative with witnesses; but she
did this with tact, not using those words, not naming names, and giving
as her reason that fact that over 100 people had not yet testified.  Her
admonition had the effect of nearly silencing a couple of senators who
had been badgering people on our side, namely Michael Flynn and Helen
Mathieu.  Relevant questions were still asked, but those two were no
longer blatantly hostile after that.

Senator Michael Lenihan, who has supported us in the past, asked the
toughest questions of both sides.  He had questions for the sponsor
about the bill and I believe about the Cincinnati decision as well.
But he also asked the $64,000 questions of some of the opposition
witnesses.  One witness against the bill tried to claim that the
bill was unnecessary because everyone is already covered under
existing laws.  Lenihan posed a hypothetical situation to this witness
in which a person was clearly fired for being gay.  He asked the
witness what recourse this person would have, and the witness
was forced to admit that the person would have none.  I think he
got this same witness (it may have been another one) to admit that
he would not rent an apartment to a person if he knew they were gay.
Sen. Paul Tavares (also a supporter of the bill) cited this testimony
when a later opposition witness tried to claim that such discrimination
was not common.

Of all of the witnesses for the opposition, I would say that only 4 or 5
were foaming at the mouth.  One of these said that there was a "shadow
government" comprised of gays, that gays controlled the state and
many organizations.  He read passages from obscure books to try to
support his conspiracy theories.  At least two senators who asked him
questions prefaced their questions by saying they didn't agree with
his conspiracy theories.  Another senator added that if gays controlled
this state, then we wouldn't have to be there debating this bill!

Nobody from our side was foaming at the mouth.  We had a range of people
including the president of the RI chapter of the National Association
of Social Workers; a few people who said they had been fired for being
gay (Sen. Helen Mathieu attacked one of these specifically; she came
armed with a statement from his former employer); several mothers of
lesbigay children (I can't say enough wonderful things about these
folks!); the 1995 Rhode Island Teacher of the Year, who came out as
a gay man at the last hearing; and Rep. Maria Lopes, who chaired the House
Special Legislation Committee hearing on this bill and is a strong ally.
Others who testified for our side included chaplains from URI and Brown
University; a man who owns a gay bar who recently experienced a clear
case of housing discrimination; a couple of lesbigay youth (very
eloquent and moving); and the head of the state Human Rights Commission
(which is the agency that would investigate claims of discrimination).
The latter testified that in the past year, the agency had received
66 complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation--about which
they could do nothing since it is not currently covered.  I hope that
this drove the point home, but some of the questions obfuscated things.
Sen. Helen Mathieu tried to grill him on the subject of false complaints
or something.  He showed her up by mentioning in answering the question
that a specific complaint was lodged against her!  Sen. Michael DeBatt
asked an absolutely absurd question:  would it be possible for a gay
person to claim that being gay was a disability, and that therefore
they should be covered by laws which cover disability?  The gentleman
from the Human Rights Commission did not understand his question
(probably because it was so stupid) and so did not answer it directly.
You may recall that DeBatt is a senator who is waffling.  We had a
coffee hour with him to discuss the bill, and he posed a number of
hypothetical situations not unsimilar to that one (based on distortions
fed to him by the bill's opponents).  He seemed satisfied with the
factual answers that we gave (we tended to go directly to language
in the bill so that there could be no doubt.)  I'm very worried about
him since he asked a question like this in the committee.  I think he
is looking for a reason to vote no.  We shall see.

Some of the most moving testimony came from a woman who used to be a
conservative Christian.  Two years ago, a series of articles about this
bill in the newspaper led her to think about the issue.  After a time,
she realized that she was a lesbian and that she was in love with one
of her friends (who reciprocated).  She talked about how hard it was
for her to come to terms with herself.  Moreover, she talked about
how some of the people who were there to testify against the bill used
to be friends of hers; they all shunned her after she came out.  They
would even turn around to avoid looking at her if they ran into her
at the grocery store.  I think it would be impossible not to be moved
by her testimony; she was very humble and sincere.  Right after her
testimony, Sen. Goodwin asked this woman's daughter to come testify.
The daughter read a poem called "The Hangman," which is about hate
and intolerance not sparing anyone (along the same lines as, "First
they came for the Jews...")  The committee members were visibly touched.

I got to testify sometime during the 10:00 hour (yes, that's p.m.)  I
was very nervous and overly conscious of the time limit, which was
being strictly enforced at that late hour.  As such, I left out some
of the things I had wanted to say.   My testimony, in summary:  opponents
had claimed earlier that if someone is fired for being gay, it's not
just because they're gay; they must have done something else (a veiled
version of "don't flaunt it at work").  I told the story of my former
roommate who was outed to the entire city of Knoxville when the newspaper
ran a picture of her at the Pride parade in 91 (of course, they did not
ask her permission first).  Coworkers stopped speaking to her and 
complained to her supervisor about petty things until she was fired for
being 5 minutes late--you tell me.  I related the story of how I received
a death threat from a phobe in college (same guy later called in a bomb
threat to our student group), while the acting president of the college
refused to add sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination clause, saying
that there were no incidents of gaybashing at that school.  I said that
this bill would not stop all discrimination, but it would give legal
recourse to the victims and would make that statement that we won't
tolerate such discrimination in RI.  I brought up a case from 1993 where
2 straight waitresses in Florida were fired when the new owner of
their restaurant decided to turn it into a gay bar.  I pointed out that
since this law explicitly includes homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals,
they would have legal recourse too under this law.  That was about it.
A number of people told me that I did well, so I will take their word for
it, nervous as I was.

The testimony ended shortly after midnight (it began that 3:00pm!)  My
overall impression is that it went well for us.  Two currently undecided
senators, Michael DeBatt and Eleanor Sasso, are on the committee, and
I kept an eye on them to watch their reactions.  My unprofessional
opinion is that we may have reached Sasso, but very likely not DeBatt
(then again, it could just be the way he comes across all the time.)
Interestingly, the committee chair, Sen. Goodwin, has voted against
the bill for three years running.  She has said in the press that she
is opposed this year because her constituents don't want it.  However,
the inside scoop is that she really would like to vote for the bill
(I don't know if it is constituent pressure or, more likely, deals
with others senators that stops her).  When the opponents took out
a quarter-page ad in the paper last week against the bill, she was
very offended by the ad.   She seemed very receptive to our side's
testimony.  When one of the few foaming at the mouth types claimed
in his testimony that "we've heard a lot of nonsense tonight," she
said to him that she disagreed, that the testimony tonight had been
very helpful.  Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but all this together
sounds like there's a chance she's been swayed.  Remember her in
your prayers, as this would truly be a miracle.  Pray also for my
senator, Daniel Issa.  He is also a committee member.  He mentioned
while asking a question that he did not support gay rights in the 
past, but that every year he keeps an open mind.  I believe that
he is sincere in this.  I spoke to him tonight for about twenty
minutes and found him a very pleasant man.  He has gay friends
and gay family members and was aware that discrimination does happen.
His reasons for voting no were that the calls he has gotten have
been 10-1 against it, and that he was concerned about government
making too many laws and that it shouldn't make a law about a
behavior.  After all, he said, how do you know if someone is gay
unless they tell you?  I asked him how he would know if someone
were Catholic or Episcopalian, and I think maybe he got the point.
I also reiterated how currently we can't do anything about the
discrimination against us, while others do have recourse.  Maybe
he got the point, I don't know.  We'll see.

The committee vote will be tomorrow (Wednesday 5/17) afternoon at
the "rise of the Senate," which I think will be around 3:30 pm 
Eastern time.  If it passes committee, which it is expected to do,
the full Senate vote will be this Friday.  We are still very
worried about the possibility of amendments, especially one
exempting youth services orgs (the "Boy Scouts amendment"), so it
is by no means a done deal. 

Love,
Tina W.