Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 04:26:11 -0400 From: ac245@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Tina M. Wood) Subject: Details on Senate vote Here is what I can remember about the Senate vote (no, I haven't been drinking--just stressed for weeks!) Most of us got there early to get a seat in the gallery. I arrived around 2:00pm, and the session began at 4:00pm. The civil rights bill was the first item up for consideration. It turns out that the Senate majority leader, Paul Kelly, went out of his way to arrange for the bill to be heard today instead of on Monday. It's rather complicated to explain, but basically Kelly set it up so that the Senate went into recess instead of fully adjourning on Wednesday so that the bill would pass committee while Senate was still technically in session. That way, it could be sent to the full Senate on Friday (today) instead of Monday. Rumor is that some people were very upset at this maneuver; but on the other hand, it did save the Senate a full weekend of telephone calls from constituents about this bill, so maybe they will forgive him. He is said to have spent a lot of political capital on this, but word is that he wants to be known as the person who finally got this bill through after 11 years. The first amendment to be offered was the Boy Scout amendment (this was the version naming the Boy Scouts specifically, not exempting any other youth services organizations). I think Sen Edward Lawrence proposed this, but it may have been Sen. William Walaska. There was quite a bit of debate about this, very little of it worth repeating. The highlight of it, though, came from Sen. Thomas Coderre, a former Eagle Scout. He read the section from the Boy Scout handbook that defines what the term "morally straight" means, and it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality! It did mention being honest and treating all persons equally (or something to that effect), however. I should mention also in this section that Sen. Michael DeBatt was one of several senators who seconded the amendment, which says to me and to many others that he has no integrity whatsoever. He even spoke again today about how he wanted in his heart to support this bill. Yet, he seconded this amendment and voted for all of the other amendments (any of which could have killed the bill). I am very angry and am hoping to find a constructive way to deal with it. Anyway, after a lot of debate, the amendment failed by a small margin (25 to 19). Our side breathed a sigh of relief at this point because we felt that that was the most dangerous (i.e., passable) of all of the possible amendments. A number of other amendments were offered, and I can't remember at this point what the order was. I will just describe them as I remember them. Sen. Stephen Alves introduced an amendment that would remove the exemption for religious organizations from this bill. He did this because he and others claimed that it was hypocritical to exempt anyone from this bill if it is really about discrimination. When this had been brought up in committee, the answer was that as legislators, they all know that they have to compromise to get support for their bills. Thus, he wanted to remove this provision and watch the support for the measure dwindle. A lot of debate ensued. At one point Sen. Marc Cote (a bill supporter) told Sen. Alves that he would be happy to co-sponsor this amendment next year--but not this year, as it would likely kill the bill. I think Alves called him a hypocrite or something like that. At any rate, the amendment was defeated. Some of us are thinking about getting footage of Sen. Alves (an opponent of the bill) saying that the exemption for religious organizations should be removed--I'm sure the religious orgs that want to discriminate would be ever so thrilled that he said this. It will be interesting to see if this amendment does come up again next year-- then we could see who the real hypocrites are. Another amendment would have changed the bill so that the exemption for "family" businesses (those employing 3 people or less, I believe) would be expanded to an exemption for businesses employing 25 or less people. Someone on our side estimated that this might exempt about 90% of RI businesses. After some discussion/posturing, this one went down to defeat as well. Another amendment (I *think* this one came up; I'm a little confused since we discussed several at a meeting last night) would have said something like "this law does not mean this state approves of this lifestyle blah blah blah." This was defeated as well. The last amendment was an attempt to send this measure to the voters as a referendum. This was where the opponents insisted that their constituents did not want this bill. In response, proponents cited a poll by a Brown University professor, considered to be the most accurate poll available on this issue, that said that 60% of Rhode Islanders *did* want it. Openly gay Sen. Will Fitzpatrick (who looks a lot like my little brother) brought up the bitter divisions that referenda on these issues caused in other states (Colorado and Oregon specifically). Many senators argued back and forth about whether voter initiative (which was fortunately defeated in committee again this year) was a good thing. Sen. Charles Walton, the only black senator, pointed out that if his civil rights had been voted on in a referendum 30 years ago, he probably would not even be allowed in the building today. Others pointed out that it is the senators' job to tackle tough issues. This amendment was defeated as well, and debate began on the bill itself. I won't even try to recount what everyone said. It got to be a blur after a while as it was mostly the opponents saying the same things over and over again. Sen. Edward Lawrence was almost literally foaming at the mouth. He went off on a long tear about sodomy and what a horrible thing it was. The strange thing is that he voted FOR the bill last time it came up. After what he said today, I can't understand how he ever supported the bill. I believe it was after one of his tirades that one of the foaming at the mouth opponents who had spoken at the hearing suddenly started clapping (uncalled for during debate). This fellow then loudly said he was leaving, and as he walked out the door, he yelled over his shoulder, "You people are IMMORAL!" I'm sure his outburst, and one during the hearing from another opponent (who accused one of our speakers of "Catholic-bashing") did not help their side any. Other bitterly outspoken opponents were Helen Mathieu (who mentioned that the New York Times called her about this, and why didn't they ever care about her legislation on water quality, then?), Catherine Graziano (who talked for so long that we began to think her strategy was to get the folks on our side to leave so we wouldn't have the votes!), William Walaska, Joseph Polisena, Michael Flynn, and Bradford Gorham. There were others too, but those are the ones that come to mind. They basically played tag-team rehashing of all the same old arguments. Flynn even had the nerve to claim that he knows all the homosexuals in his district and that they all made more money than hets, had more college degrees, took more overseas trips--all taken right from the RRR propaganda. The vote came sometime around 7:00pm, and it was 26 to 21. I should add that the three senators who were absent were supporters as well. Also, I was delighted to note that Sandra Hanaway, who had been an unknown, voted with us all the way. I will give the roll call in a separate post. Tina W.