---

Sunday, February 8, 1998

---

NATIONAL GROUPS WATCH RIGHTS VOTE

By Steven G. Vegh
Staff Writer
©Copyright 1998 Guy Gannett Communications
The vote Tuesday on Maine's new gay-rights law is, for the moment, the focus of the nationwide struggle over legal rights for gay people.

Voters will be asked if they want to overturn legislation passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in credit, housing, employment and public accommodations.

The national movements that oppose, and advocate, legal protection for gay people each see something unique in Maine's referendum.

''We see Maine as a linchpin since it has acquired a reputation as a liberal state,'' said Robert Knight of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., which wants Maine's legislation repealed. ''The feeling is, if it can be done in Maine it can be done anywhere.''

Advocacy groups such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force say the vigor shown by Mainers who support the legislation demonstrates that gay-rights advocates aren't complacent or intimidated by opponents.

''This really shows people around the country that people in the gay community have tasted what it's like to be treated fairly and . . . are not at all willing to roll over and say, 'Oh, well,' '' said Mark Johnson of the task force, also based in Washington.

National groups on both sides have sent help to their Maine allies in the form of paid staff, cash, radio ads and campaign pamphlets.

For example, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has sent staffers to provide advice on campaigning and educating voters. The Family Research Council has underwritten a statewide tour of self-described former homosexuals who oppose gay rights.

At stake is whether Maine becomes the 11th state in the nation with a gay-rights law. It was only last year that New Hampshire and Maine joined the group by approving gay-rights legislation. Maine's law has not taken effect, pending the outcome of Tuesday's vote.

In the absence of a federal gay-rights law, state laws like Maine's are the most comprehensive form of legal protection for gay people.

Despite the stakes in Maine, neither side calls the election crucial to their overall success. It's just the latest in a years-long series of statewide and local votes, city ordinances and legislative proposals aimed at various aspects of gay rights.

Both sides say they'll continue their fight for as long as it takes, regardless of the outcome in Maine.

''There's no final victory for either side,'' Knight said. ''Either side will continue to press for its advantage or point of view.''

At the same time, like good spin-doctors anywhere, spokesmen on both sides say they'll emerge as winners even if defeated by Maine voters.

''Just the fact that states even consider these issues, I think many people would say, is a victory,'' Johnson said. Just 10 years ago, it would have been inconceivable that the voters of an entire state would be asked to consider a gay-rights law, he said.

Knight said the existence of a referendum challenge to gay rights demonstrates a new assertiveness by Americans. ''It's already a victory for the people, because they refuse to sit back and take what the cultural elites told them was their medicine. . . . It's part of a national uprising against arrogant legislators and courts who are imposing their values on the people.''

The history of public policy and legal rights for gay people is like a seesaw, with both sides winning, and losing, battles over laws on same-sex marriage, hate crimes and gay-bashing, employer-paid benefits for domestic partners, and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The struggle has been waged in state legislatures and in the ballot boxes and governing councils of towns, cities and counties. The mixed results let both sides claim victory and support, which can confuse some voters.

Regarding state laws, voters in Oregon rejected a constitutional amendment in 1992 that would have labeled homosexuality ''abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse.''

The same year, Colorado voters approved a state law that barred courts, the Legislature and local governments from approving gay-rights measures. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out the law in 1996, calling it unconstitutional.

In 1994, Oregon and Idaho rejected proposals to ban gay-rights laws. Maine voters rejected an anti-gay rights measure in 1995.

In 1996, a petition drive in Idaho failed to get enough signatures to put an anti-gay rights initiative on the ballot. And last fall, voters in Washington rejected a proposal to add sexual orientation to the state's civil-rights law as a protected category.

Statewide votes on gay rights have become less frequent than they were a few years ago. The opposite is true for legislative bills.

Last year, for example, 248 pieces of legislation touching on some aspect of rights for homosexuals were submitted in 49 states, according to statistics gathered by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

There were 160 pieces of such legislation in 1996, and 105 in 1995, the group reported.

Of the 248 bills filed in 1997, 128 supported rights for gay people and 120 opposed them, the task force said.

Of the total, 43 bills were signed into law, 24 of which supported gay rights of some kind and 19 of which opposed various forms of gay rights.

Communities, like state legislatures, also are seeing more gay-rights proposals, said James Button, a political scientist at the University of Florida.

About 165 cities and counties across the nation have adopted some kind of gay-rights measure.

Meanwhile, ''there have been, very quietly and without fanfare, a tremendous number of companies that have adopted nondiscrimination and partner-rights policies,'' said Stephanie Witt, a political scientist at Boise State University in Idaho. She is co-editor of ''Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives.''

''Generally, the trend certainly in the '90s is toward increased gay rights legislation, both at the local and state level,'' Button said. ''We're finding places that 10 years ago would never even consider gay legislation.''

Button, who co-wrote ''Private Lives, Public Conflicts: Battles Over Gay Rights in American Communities,'' said the trend parallels public opinion polls that show most Americans think that gay people need protection from discrimination.

Nonetheless, gay-rights measures are not consistently supported. Springfield, Mo., Tampa, Fla., Ferndale, Mich., Wooster County, Ohio, and Salt Lake City are among the communities where elected officials or voters have repealed various kinds of gay-rights ordinances. In Maine, Lewiston voters repealed a gay-rights ordinance in 1993.

And while the roster of 165 communities with gay-rights laws may seem impressive, it's relatively tiny. ''You have to think about how many cities and counties there are overall - a staggering number,'' Witt said.

In addition, gay-rights laws generally have been passed in the nation's more liberal cities and states. ''When you're talking about more conservative areas of the country'' - the South and Midwest - ''you'll find the right wing will strongly oppose gay rights, sometimes successfully,'' Button said.

For now, the win-loss record in legislatures and city councils, in private companies and in public opinion, seems to support gay rights, Button and Witt said.

''It all suggests that the tide has turned in favor of gay and lesbian supporters,'' Button said.

But for how long? The scholars don't know.

''This is one of those issues, like abortion, where the people on both sides will continually seek a new arena to fight this out,'' Witt said. ''I think it's going to be a long battle. It's too soon to predict a winner overall.''