Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander

Anchorage Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander made extensive  comments on August 11 explaining why she would not support passage of the Anchorage equal rights ordinance, AO 2009-64. [Ref #1] Included in her comments was her opinion about Title VII f the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352), as follows (tip o’ the nib to John Aronno of Alaska Commons for transcription):

I also discovered that, though what we are proposing as protection at the municipal level, through the Equal Rights Commission, there are some federal regulations and laws that could pertain here. I particularly looked at Title VII, what was covered in Title VII, I read some court cases, I read some court cases about Title VII, it’s basically the civil rights law of the United States, and it basically covers, in my mind, employee discrimination, including same sex employee discrimination, for businesses with over fifteen employees.

Pamela Kelley (right) talking with Jean Craciun during a break at the July 21 Anchorage Assembly meeting

This was in spite of testimony before the Assembly on July 21 by Anchorage attorney and UAA Justice professor Pamela Kelley to the effect that, no, in fact existing law does not protect LGBT people from discrimination [Ref #2] and a followup letter Prof. Kelly sent the following day to Ossiander and to Assembly Member Jennifer Johnston about a U.S. Supreme Court case arising out of Title VII, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). [Ref #3] As discussed in my post about Prof. Kelley’s letter, Oncale is one case which demonstrates  how narrowly the Supreme Court interprets Title VII’s provisions regarding sex discrimination — which does not extend to sexual orientation. [Ref #4]

Now comes a case decided last Friday in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Prowel v. Wise Business Forms. This case involved a self-described effeminate gay man who claimed his employer discriminated against him because he failed to conform in his mannerisms, style of dress, and interests to masculine gender role stereotypes, in violation of Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination. [Ref #5] The 3rd Circuit based its decision in Prowel on another Title VII case, the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which ruled in favor of a woman who had been discriminated against because she did not conform to traditional norms of femininity. [Ref #6] As summarized by Marquette law professor Paul Secunda,

That’s called sex-stereotype discrimination… when an employer says to someone “you’re not acting ‘female enough’ or ‘male enough,’ therefore we’re firing you.” [Ref #7]

In other words, Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins clarified that by making sex discrimination in employment illegal, Title VII also made  sex-stereotype discrimination illegal.  But it did not make sexual orientation discrimination illegal, as demonstrated by numerous references in Prowel. For example:

• “a claim for sexual orientation discrimination — which is not cognizable under Title VII” [Ref #5, p. 10]
• quoting from a prior 3rd Circuit decision in Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co. [Ref #8], “Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would have extended Title VII to cover sexual orientation” [Ref #5, p. 10]
• again, in reference to the Bibby decision, “Despite acknowledging that harassment based on sexual orientation has no place in a just society, we explained that Congress chose not to include sexual orientation harassment in Title VII” [Ref #5, p. 12]

Emmett Honeycutt (portrayed by Peter Paige) in Showtime's "Queer As Folk" — like Brian D. Prowel, a Pennsylvanian with "pizzazz". (Showtime promotional image)

The question in Prowel was whether Brian D. Prowel, the plaintiff, had been discriminated against for being homosexual — in which case he had no recourse for a complaint under Title VII — or for not conforming to gender stereotypes — in which case he did.  The court was clear in any case that,

There is no basis in the statutory or case law to support the notion that an effeminate heterosexual man can bring a gender stereotyping claim while an effeminate homosexual man may not. [Ref #5, p. 17; emphasis in original]

and hence concluded,

As long as the employee — regardless of his or her sexual orientation — marshals sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could conclude that harassment or discrimination occurred “because of sex,” the case is not appropriate for summary judgment. For the reasons we have articulated, Prowel has adduced sufficient evidence [of sex-stereotyping discrimination] to submit this claim to a jury. [Ref #5, p. 17]

What this means in essence is that within the 3rd Circuit’s jurisdiction at least — which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands [Ref #9]:

• An effeminate gay man fired from his job might have recourse under Title VII, but only if he can prove he was discriminated against based on gender stereotypes, rather than sexual orientation.  A gay man who’s butch?  SOL.
• Likewise, a lesbian with a mannish or butch presentation (like me!) might have recourse — but again, only if she can prove she was canned for being butch, not for being a lesbian.  But a femme lesbian?  Too bad so sad.

The 3rd Circuit’s decision is not precedential for Alaska, which is covered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  But there is no reason to suspect that the judges of the 9th Circuit have any different understanding than the judges of the 3rd Circuit when it comes to the relevance of Title VII to sexual orientation discrimination.  Let me repeat: SOL.  Let me repeat: Too bad, so sad.

So display your gender stereotype noncomformity freely. But keep your sexual orientation firmly in the closet. At least, that’s what the case law on Title VII has to say about it. And that will remain the case until, if and when, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Title VII’s sex discrimination provision includes sexual orientation discrimination, or until Congress amends Title VII to add sexual orienation through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), as has been proposed in both houses of Congress recently. [Ref #7] Until then, as Paul Secunda explained to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog,

…while certain states and cities have laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the Supreme Court has never ruled that sexual orientation is covered by Title VII. [Ref #7]

It may all the same be true what Debbie Ossiander said of Title VII, that “it basically covers, in my mind,. employee discrimination, including same sex employee discrimination.”

But what counts with Title VII isn’t what’s in Debbie Ossiander’s mind — but in what the courts have ruled. So while she may have partially salved her own conscience with her mistaken notions about Title VII, reality is that thanks to her “no” vote on AO 2009-64, and what seems likely to be her refusal to override Mayor Sullivan’s veto of it, LGBT people in Anchorage have no more protection from the unfair job discrimination than they they do in housing, public accommodations, financial practices, and municipal practices.

In the meantime, Brian D. Prowel: I wish you the very best. What your coworkers and employer subjected you to was inexcusable.  Readers of this blog can read the full court decision to see just how nasty they were.  And rest assured that some Anchorage employers and coworkers are every bit as nasty.  Too bad. So sad. No recourse here.

References

1. 8/13/09. “Third time in 35 years: Anchorage’s equal rights ordinance” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
2. 7/23/09. “Kelley testimony 1: Contrary to prior Assembly testimony, existing law does not protect LGBT people from discrimination” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
3. 7/23/09. “Kelley testimony 2: Oncale Supreme Court decision on workplace sexual harassment does not protect LGBTs from discrimination” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
4. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998).
5. 8/28/09. Prowel v. Wise Business Forms. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Opinion written by Judge Thomas M. Hardiman.
6. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
7. 9/1/09. “On Sexual-Orientation and Title VII: Are Changes Afoot?” by Ashby Jones (WSJ.com Law Blog).
8. Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2001); cited in Prowel v. Wise Business Forms.
9. 8/29/09. “Appeals court allows gender stereotype case” by Paula Reed Ward (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).

[Crossposted at Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis]

Related posts:

1. Kelley testimony 2: Oncale Supreme Court decision on workplace sexual harassment does not protect LGBTs from discrimination
2. Against discrimination in Anchorage
3. "There's no sign of discrimination" — uh, yes there is

We are all, or none. Equality Works! (Tip o' the nib to Stef, for buttonmaking!)

Over the past couple of weeks, Bent Alaska has been publishing some of the testimony of people who testified to the Anchorage Assembly in favor of the Anchorage equal rights ordinance AO 2009-64, which if passed will grant equal protection from discrimination to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans people who live, work, and/or visit the Municipality of Anchorage. And I realized, well, although I’ve written a fair amount on my blog about the ordinance battle, and even posted the full text of the letter I wrote to the Assembly in early June, I somehow hadn’t gotten around to posting the testimony I gave at the Assembly on June 16.  So that became one of my tasks this evening: to find my prepared testimony, & put it online.

I couldn’t have timed it better: earlier today I learned that Assembly Member Dan Coffey — in whose district I live — has placed a resolution on the agenda for the August 11 Assembly meeting which would establish a task force to study the issue.  For a year.  After we’ve just been through six long nights of public testimony stretched out over the summer.

Another year?

This isn’t the first time a task force has been suggested.  It came up in some of the questions Assembly members asked during the first night of public testimony way back on June 9.  The idea seemed to inform the proposal by Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander, in her S-1 version of the ordinance, to authorize the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission to track complaints of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression (even while permitting most such discrimination to continue unabated).

My testimony, given on June 16, the same meeting at which Ossiander’s version was presented, directly addressed whether a task force was needed.  Here it is as I wrote it.

Thank you for hearing my testimony.

My name is Melissa Green. I am an Anchorage resident.

Identity Reports (1989) and One in 10 (1986)

I was part of two major research efforts in the 1980s to document sexual orientation bias in Alaska. One in 10: A Profile of Alaska’s Lesbian & Gay Community published in 1986 reported on the results of a statewide survey of 734 lesbian, gay, and bisexual Alaskans. Identity Reports: Sexual Orientation Bias in Alaska was published in 1989 and included three papers, including “Closed Doors,” a survey of Anchorage employers and landlords; and “Prima Facie,” which documented 84 actual cases of of violence, harassment, and discrimination due to sexual orientation bias. Copies of both reports are now on the Internet at Henkimaa.com — that’s H-E-N-K-I-M-A-A dot com. I’ve also prepared copies on CD for all members of the Assembly, as well as hard copies of “Prima Facie,” which I will give to the clerk when I complete my testimony.Some of the relevant findings from both reports:

Of the 734 respondents to One in 10:

• 61 percent reported being victimized by violence and harassment while in Alaska because of their sexual orientation;
• 39 percent reported discrimination in employment, housing, and loans/credit; and
• 33 percent reported discrimination from services and institutions.

From the “Closed Doors” component of Identity Reports:

• 31 percent of the 191 employers in the survey said they would not hire or promote or would fire someone they had reason to believe was homosexual.
• 20 percent of the 178 landlords in the survey said they would not rent to or would evict someone they had reason to believe was homosexual.

From the “Prima Facie” component of Identity Reports:

• 84 actual instances of antigay bias, discrimination, harassment, or violence (including three murders) were recorded involving 30 men and 21 women. 64 of the cases we documented were in Anchorage.
• Victims were predominately gay men or lesbians, but also included heterosexuals who were erroneously assumed to be gay or lesbian.

It was suggested last week that we need a “study” or a “task force” to decide if we need this ordinance. The studies have been done. The testimony you’ve already heard about discrimination updates those studies and shows that sexual orientation discrimination is still going on today. And that’s not even including the people who have not testified because there’s nothing to protect them from more discrimination for just showing up and telling you their stories. Do we really need another study, or a task force, to discover again what we have already know? There are at least 108 examples of other cities with similar ordinances, which not only continue to function, but do it better because their citizens do not suffer from unfair discrimination. I ask you: how much discrimination is tolerable? What is the threshold for justice? — how many stories do we have to bring to you before you stop passing it on to the future, and establish protections for the people who are being discriminated against today?

Please: pass a full version of this ordinance.

No, a task force wasn’t needed then; and nearly two months later, it still isn’t.  The task force proposal is just another means to delay acting in accordance with the public policy the Municipality of Anchorage purports to adhere to, as written in Anchorage Municipal Code 5.10.010:

The public policy of the municipality is declared to be equal opportunity for all persons.

Is this really the Muni’s public policy?  Or is it not?  Decide, and vote.

* * *

More about Dan Coffey’s task force resolution, starting with the text of the resolution itself:

• AR NO. 2009–186. “A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly authorizing a citizen task force to review the nature and extent of discrimination based on sexual orientation and the potential for conflict with constitutional rights.” Submitted by Assembly Member Dan Coffey for reading August 11, 2009.
• 8/6/09. “Coffey says city needs gay rights task force — NO DELAY: But backers and critics want to see assembly vote on proposed ordinance” by Don Hunter (Anchorage Daily News)

Incidentally, Don Hunter’s ADN story is incorrect in stating that there are “three versions of the original sexual orientation ordinance” for consideration by the Anchorage Assembly.  In fact, there are four versions: on July 23, Assembly Member Patrick Flynn announced on his blog that he had written a new draft, version S-2.

Here are all four versions of Ordinance 64:

• AO No. 2009-64. Original draft submitted on behalf of then-Acting Mayor Matt Claman, for reading May 12, 2009.
• AO No. 2009-64 (S). First substitution version submitted on behalf of then-Acting Mayor Matt Claman, for reading June 9, 2009.
• AO No. 2009-64 (S-1). Second substitution version submitted by Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander, for reading June 16, 2009.
• AO No. 2009-64 (S-2). Third substitution version submitted by Assembly Member Patrick Flynn, for reading August 11, 2009.

I’ll be writing a post comparing the four versions over the next couple of days.  I’ll just say for now that I consider Ossiander’s S-1 version the worst of the four (it permits discrimination in private employment, and permits discrimination on the basis of gender identity across the board). Flynn’s S-2 is the best, and is the one I support: it’s the most clear both in its anti-discrimination provisions and in its language about religious exemptions, and addresses specific issues some had about employees of religious organizations such as Sunday School teachers and bus drivers.

I urge you to throw your support behind S-2, too. Let your Assembly representative(s) and Mayor Sullivan know which one you support.

Related posts:

1. What's on the table: Anchorage equal rights ordinance
2. "There's no sign of discrimination" — uh, yes there is
3. My letter to Mayor Sullivan: Please let AO 64 stand

Pamela Kelley (right) talking with Jean Craciun during a break at the July 21 Anchorage Assembly meeting

As mentioned in my previous post about UAA Justice Center Professor Pamela Kelley’s July 21 testimony at the Anchorage Assembly, there was some confusion about a particular court decision mentioned by a previous speaker.  This led Pam to write an letter yesterday to Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander and Assembly Member Jennifer Johnston to clear up the confusion.  Pam sent me a copy as well, and she granted me permission to post it here.

Prof. Kelley’s email

From: [Email address deleted for privacy] On Behalf Of Pamela R. Kelley
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:51 PM
To: Ossiander@gci.net; JJohnston@gci.net
Subject: Ocale case bearing on AO 2009-64

I’m the UAA prof who spoke about what the law currently provides at the 7/21 hearing.  I’ve attached a letter explaining the significance of the Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) case that an ordinance opponent referenced.  I’ve also included a copy of the case from the Lawyer’s Edition reporter of Supreme Court cases because I find them easier to read than the Legal Information Institute version.

Best wishes as you evaluate this tough call.

Prof. Kelley’s attached letter

Pamela R. Kelley
[address deleted for privacy]

July 22, 2009

VIA Email
Debbie Ossiander
Ossiander@gci.net

Jennifer Johnston
JJohnston@gci.net

Re: AO 2009-64 et al.

Dear Assembly Members,

I want to take this opportunity to correct any confusion brought about as a result of my testimony at the July 21, 2009 public hearing on the anti-discrimination ordinance. My hearing isn’t as sharp as it once was, and so I commented about the McCollough case that I thought a previous member of the public referenced. At the break I learned he’d spoken of the Oncale case.

I correctly represented that the former was not governing law in our jurisdiction, being neither a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision nor one of the U.S. Supreme Court. But Oncale is most definitely law governing in Alaska. However, that does not alter the thrust of the testimony I provided to you last night. Even Oncale does not provide the spectrum of protection that the proposed ordinance or charter amendments would provide. The case is quite limited in its scope.

Three minutes is not sufficient time to define the case law in a nuanced area such as the law of employment discrimination or the broader law of equal protection. Here, however, is a very succinct explanation for why I hold firmly to my view that the protections promised through the proposed ordinance are not provided through the application of Oncale’s rule to our community.

First, Oncale recognizes that the law of employment discrimination based on sex (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1)) applies to men just as it applies to women. Second, Oncale recognizes that the specie of employment discrimination referred to as “sexual harassment” is applicable to cases in which the alleged harasser and victim are of the same sex. The balance of the case speaks to presumptions and standards of proof – more of interest to a litigator than a legislator I suspect.

Oncale arises out of events that occurred on an offshore oil platform, where Mr. Oncale worked as a roustabout who alleged he was fondled and threatened with rape by other members of his eight-man work crew. Assuming arguendo the facts he alleged were true, Mr. Oncale was the victim of prohibited sex discrimination because he was a heterosexual male.

The case is not one that extends protection from discrimination to the classes of persons identified in the ordinance. Cases of statutory construction (as opposed to constitutional right) are strictly construed and narrowly drawn. The holding in Oncale does not expand the reach of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals as newly protected classes. Rather, it pronounces at most that homosexual persons are not free to discriminate against heterosexuals without risking liability under the Act.

Oncale is about “hostile work environment” sexual harassment. It is not about quid pro quo sexual harassment. It is limited to the workplace. It does not reach hiring, firing and promotion. It does not reach housing. It does not reach education. It does not reach commercial practices.

After reading Oncale last night, I spent most of the day reviewing the headnotes of the case law in the 9th Circuit to locate a case in which Oncale is cited by the court to form the basis for a more expansive holding than I have described here. I’ve read dozens of cases today. I have not found one that approaches the reach of the proposed ordinance. Instead, I continue to read cases in which Oncale is read as narrowly as I have described it. Courts are conservative institutions for the most part, in the sense that they follow precedent closely.

I urge you to consider the ordinance in light of what existing law actually is, and not how it has been represented to you out of context. If it passes, it will improve the lives of permanent members of our community whose children attend our schools and whose property taxes fund municipal services. I support the ordinance, I encourage you to do so too.

Respectfully,
Pamela R. Kelley

Oncale decision text & information

Click through for a copy in PDF format of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in this case.  The copy included here is as printed in the Lawyer’s Edition reporter, 140 L Ed 2d 201 (as provided by Prof. Kelley), which means that besides the decision itself, there’s also a case summary and headnotes.

• Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998).

Text of the case is also available through the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell University Law School.

Additional sources on the Oncale decision:

• “Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services.” Wikipedia article.
• Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. , U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument. The Oyez Project (website). Audio file and transcript of oral arguments made before the U.S. Supreme Court.
• “Oncale v. Sundowner: Same-sex Harassment, and Sexual Harassment of Men.” Sexual Harassment Support (website).

A note of irony

I can’t complete this post without noting the considerable irony in a case like Oncale being brought forth in support of arguments against an ordinance that would protect LGBT people from discrimination.  Here are a couple of relevant excerpts from the summary of the case at the Sexual Harassment Support website (emphases added):

In October 1991, Oncale was working for respondent Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U. S. A., Inc., oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. He was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by his male coworkers in the presence of the rest of the crew. His coworkers, including supervisory personnel, grabbed him, held him, removed their penises from their trousers and threatened to have sex with him. He also alleged he was in a shower when these same men entered the shower, pinned him, and abused him using a bar of soap. (Note: all men involved, including Oncale, were heterosexual.)

All of them were heterosexual. Then why were they harassing him?  Most probably the harassers perceived Mr. Oncale as gay; and in fact, per the text of the Supreme Court decision (written by Justice Antonin Scalia), when Mr. Oncale went to the company safety compliance clerk for assistance in stopping the harassment, the clerk “called him a name suggesting homosexuality.”

The Supreme Court decision ultimately stipulated that “Sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII” — regardless of the sexual orientations of the perpetrators or victims, or whether sexual desire or intentions were involved. Per the Sexual Harassment Support website,

This case also set the precedent that an harasser does not have to have sexual intentions towards a target for their behavior to be viewed as sexual harassment. For example, if a straight man is harassing another man, if the behaviors include unwanted sexual attention or actions, it can still constitute sexual harassment.

That’s of course exactly how it happened to Mr. Oncale: he was a straight man who was sexually harassed by other straight men. But male-on-male sexual harassment and worse is not uncommonly used by straight men as an intimidation tactic against homosexual men:

This case has been lauded by homosexual groups, who have pointed out that the precedent set provides protections for gays who are often the targets of sexual harassment because of their orientation. Indeed, it has been heralded as a landmark “gay rights” case, even though the people involved were all heterosexuals.

Indeed.  In Identity Reports, we documented two cases in which gay men were sexually assaulted by multiple assailants — in other words, gang-raped.  One of those cases was documented from newspaper sources, and it was unclear from the account what the assailants’ motivation was or what their sexual orientation was; but in the other case, taken from the victim’s personal testimony, it was clear that the assailants were heterosexual and that they targeted the victim specifically because they perceived (in this case correctly) that he was gay.

It was pretty violent, too — don’t read this next quote if you can’t tolerate graphic detail:

The other men had been drinking, and had brought some beer to the supply room with them.  Some had knives or broken beer bottles, with which they threatened him.  They also hit him.  They laid one of the mattresses from the supply room out.  Subject was raped anally by each of them in turn, and they cut his rectum with a broken beer bottle.

— Green, Melissa S. (1989). “Prima Facie: Documented Cases of Sexual Orientation Bias in Alaska.” In Melissa S. Green and Jay K. Brause, Identity Reports: Sexual Orientation Bias in Alaska (Anchorage, AK: Identity), p. 46.

It’s a common pattern: as anti-rape activists have noted for a good long time, sexual assault and rape are less about sex per se than they are about power, violence, and intimidation. As anyone knows who is familiar with the endemic problem of same-sex prison rape (see the website of Just Detention International, formerly known as Stop Prisoner Rape); as anyone knows who has read Anchorage Daily News reader comments about legislators convicted of corruption, as I have, where there were frequent “joking” references to “Don’t drop the soap” and other references — even outright calls for — the convicted legislators, all men, to be sexually assaulted in prison by other men.  Ha ha, how funny. Not.

Ironic, then,that a unanimous Supreme Court decision that condemns and outlaws such behavior — at least in the workplace — which has has been wielded frequently as a tool of violence and intimidation against people who are or are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans, should now be used to argue against an ordinance which would prohibit other kinds of unfairly discriminatory behavior against them.

P.S. on reposting

Pam Kelley granted me this permission: “Feel free to put this to any use you want — I’m proud to pop my head up (among the throngs of three-minute experts) to speak clearly about equality.” Hence, ordinance supporters may feel free, with appropriate crediting & link back to this post, to repost this blog entry freely.

Related posts:

1. No, Debbie, Title VII does NOT prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment. Hello?
2. Kelley testimony 1: Contrary to prior Assembly testimony, existing law does not protect LGBT people from discrimination
3. Delay by "task force": My testimony to the Anchorage Assembly

Anchorage attorney and UAA Justice Center professor Pamela Kelley outside July 7 Assembly meeting. Pam was too far down on the list to testify on July 7, but came back to testify on July 21 to correct the record about whether existing law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and financial practices. (Hint: it doesn't.)

Among the few arguments against proposed Anchorage ordinance AO 2009-64 that does not involve Christianist claims about the Bible is the claim that such an ordinance is unnecessary — that existing law already protects lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transfolk from unfair discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and financial practices.

Would that it were so. Unfortunately, it’s a false claim, which was ably refuted by attorney Pamela R. Kelley in her testimony last Tuesday night (beginning 3:02:00 and ending about 3:07:00 into the Assembly meeting for anyone who wants to take a look at the video of testimony for the June 21 meeting).  At least, as ably as she could do given only 3 minutes in which to testify, with a few extra minutes added when members of the Assembly asked her questions.

For the record, Pamela R. Kelley is a professor at the Justice Center at University of Alaska Anchorage, where she for several years has been the coordinator of the Justice Center’s Paralegal Certificate Program and has taught numerous courses on law, justice, and legal research. I, of course, work at the Justice Center too; it’s been my great pleasure and privilege over the years to count Pam not only as a coworker, but also as a friend.

Pam addressed a number of points of law during her Tuesday night testimony. She was kind enough to provide me with a copy of her prepared testimony.  However, there’s a caveat.  As she wrote to me in her email in which a copy of her testimony was attached,

I didn’t stick to my script very well after case law was mangled by an earlier speaker.  I didn’t get to make an important point about the distinction between anti-discriminatory treatment and affirmative action.

There was also some confusion about a particular case mentioned by the earlier speaker; see the next post for Pam’s clarification on that.

All emphases added by me.

Prof. Kelley’s prepared testimony

No. 541 [a reference to Pam's place on the witness list]

Thank you – Madame Chairman, members of the assembly, Mr. Mayor. My name is Pamela Kelley. I am a member of the Alaska bar, no longer practicing but now teaching undergraduates about the law. I live in Anchorage. I signed up, belatedly, to testify because I think the state of the existing law has been obscured during the public comment already taken.

Federal, state and local laws overlap in the area of equal rights in employment, public accommodations and commerce. The first inaccuracy I hear repeated in these chambers is the idea that existing law already provides the protections that the proposed ordinance would cover. It does not.

The Constitution’s equal protection clauses, at the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, limit actions by the government – not private acts of discrimination. Nor are federal statutes helpful.

In Title 42 of the United States Code, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended reaches the area. Federal law here identifies those classes of persons against whom discrimination is illegal to include: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. None of those terms – including “sex” as defined, reach lesbians, gays, bisexual and trans-gendered individuals. But that only sets the minimums. The state of Alaska law may reach additional classes. Upon examination, however, it’s apparent that the Alaska Human Rights Act does not expand the classifications to cover this.

AS 18.80.220. protects against discrimination based on: race, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, or parenthood. Gender orientation and gender identity are not identified as protected classes by state law, either.

The second category of comments that is legally inaccurate suggests the proposed ordinance confers special rights. One of two things might be going on here. Either some might be confusing the concept of non-discrimination with affirmative action. Or, some erroneously consider equal protection a kind of zero-sum game.

First: Discrimination occurs when one possessed of differences from another is rejected by that other, solely based on that difference. Only certain forms of discrimination are illegal under state, federal and local law. Same treatment as everyone else – despite differences – is the foundation of equal rights law.

Different, in fact preferential, treatment is what is at the basis of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a term used to describe programs and policies that provide preferences in benefits or contracting to a protected class to make up for historically discriminatory practices directed at that class. Obviously not the ordinance.

That leaves me with the “zero sum game” fallacy. There is no finite pool of rights to which equal protection applies. Our religious neighbors, in the free exercise of their religion, as a constitutional right, are not released from their obligations to comply with the law. The right of free exercise of religion does not prevent the law’s application when the doctrine of a freely chosen religion suggests members violate public laws. The simple example is the prohibition against illegal drug use that continues to apply to a person even if her selected religion views such use as sacramental.

Equal protection laws are aspirational, in a way. I hope my home town aspires to accept all of its people for exactly who they are and will apply the law to them equally.

Thank you.

P.S. on reposting

Pam Kelley granted me this permission: “Feel free to put this to any use you want — I’m proud to pop my head up (among the throngs of three-minute experts) to speak clearly about equality.” Hence, ordinance supporters may feel free, with appropriate crediting & link back to this post, to repost this blog entry freely.

Related posts:

1. Kelley testimony 2: Oncale Supreme Court decision on workplace sexual harassment does not protect LGBTs from discrimination
2. No, Debbie, Title VII does NOT prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment. Hello?
3. Delay by "task force": My testimony to the Anchorage Assembly

• Feeling better today. Guess I did what I needed to do yesterday to get myself out of the grey. So far, so good. #
• RT: @celticdiva: Ethics investigator finds probable cause Palin rec’ving improper gifts thru legal fund. http://bit.ly/uzAtr #palin #
• Slate on implications of @amazonfail volume 2 (the 1984 Kindle edition) http://www.slate.com/id/2223214/pagenum/all/ #
• @jansonjones Now wondering what a Caesarian staple-remover looks like. Do they sell them at Office Depot? in reply to jansonjones #
• Ethics violation by Palin: report dated 7/14, we didn’t hear till 7/21. I.e., for past week: Palin knowingly lied. Surprise! #
• Homeward bound to take care of dog pee needs, then on to the Assembly to public hearing #6 on Anchorage equal rights ordinance. #anclgbt #
• Scarfing down sardines on crackers before heading to Assembly. Not much action outside Loussac when I went by on bus earlier. #anclgbt #

Anchorage Assembly meeting

• In assembly chambers, assembly on break, reconvening soon. Est. 64 testimony to start @ 7:45 PM or so. #anclgbt #
• Lots quieter here than on those halcyon days of June, w/ the great Pride parties on the lawn & crowded chambers. #anclgbt #
• Assembly now getting back to biz. #anclgbt #
• AO 64 testimony starting. Lorsa people whose names were called not here. about ten names on: a gay man who is a psychologist. #anclgbt #
• This guy is great, well-constructed testimony. #anclgbt #
• An anti ord testimony arguing based on physiology and what that means about god’s design for how bodies are used. #anclgbt #
• 525 526 etc lots people not here. Anti person making false claims abt religion surprise surprise #anclgbt #
• Bible believing mumbling christianist #anclgbt #
• “we are not the name-callers” oh yeah?which side has called anyone “perverts”? #anclgbt #
• More bible beating Christianism [yawn]. so much for religious freedom. Since most people are not, surprise! Chistianists. #anclgbt #
• Christianists believe that there is no religion but their own. Even those who say judeo-christian don’t see Judaism as a religion. #anclgbt #
• This is Tuesday at the Assembly not Sunday school. Duh. #anclgbt #
• The logical fallacies & misstatements of fact are too numerous to enumerate. #anclgbt #
• Atta girl Ossiander — go to the cops if adults are sexually harassing minor children. Duh! #anclgbt #
• Did Palin write your testimony? better have Vanity Fair edit it! #anclgbt #
• That’s right – our families are deserving of protection too. #anclgbt #
• Yeah Pamela Kelley! my coworker, testifying about what law actually says. #anclgbt #
• Addressing misstatements about law made by anti ordinance people #anclgbt #
• Special rights is “Zero sum game fallacy.” #anclgbt #
• Gobbledygook in a suit. #anclgbt #
• My friend Lynne Sangster singing Jesus Loves Me and ordinance supporters softly singing along. #anclgbt #
• No I call having got fired from a job for no other reason than that I’m a lesbian “discrimination.” duh #anclgbt #
• “copious amounts of unique logic” – “municipally sanctioned gay-bashing” – yep, that’s the christianists all right #anclgbt #
• Flynn: “which is the eternal damnation?– being on the Assembly, or being removed from it?” #anclgbt #
• Tiffany McClain of Equality Works testifying. #anclgbt #
• Assembly taking a stretch break #anclgbt #
• Ossiander: “there is a sense of frustration from Assembly members over repetitive testimony”. Oh really? #anclgbt #
• @katsylver you’ll be fine! in reply to katsylver #
• Ok bud you’re waating everyone’s time Ma & Pa Kettle? #anclgbt #
• RT @tonei: “Guns are not nearly as dangerous as the Internet.” -same old white dude. #anclgbt #
• Will this ordinance make Betty Grable illegal? How about Playboy bunnies? #anclgbt #
• Let’s hear it for the majority of heterosexual Anchorage citizens who support equality #anclgbt #
• Tim Pearson’s testimony rocked. #anclgbt #
• As soon as you hear an anti revere the Constitution, know that you’ll immediately hear misstatements of fact. #anclgbt #
• She doesn’t like her gay brother therefore we should be discriminated against #anclgbt #
• Here we go, Rome again #anclgbt #
• The antis have decided to wear more colors tonight, mostly black & brown. #anclgbt #
• 20% of battery remaining. Current person talking about lots stuff having nothing to do with ordinance. #anclgbt #
• Guy says passing ordinance wd increase crime rate. #anclgbt #
• Whatever you believe about the bible, it’s notbthe law of the land. Duh. & this woman claims to be a highly educated lawyer? #anclgbt #
• If that woman was most educated person she knows, whia, scareeeey! #anclgbt #
• RT @tonei: Woman claims sodomy was a federal crime 10 yrs ago. Um, no, kthx. #anclgbt and she claimed to be a highly educated lawyer! #
• “god’s word says thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind” – I know I know! So like any self respecting lesbo, I don’t! #anclgbt #
• RT @tonei: Man says “I’m not going to waste yr time” and proceeds to waste our time. #anclgbt #
• The reality of the Sodom & Gommorah story is to give the exact opposite lesson: it’s about hospitality to the stranger. #anclgbt #
• 18-yr-old Dimond grad: Locke talked about not God- given rights but innate rights. #anclgbt #
• Comparing the choice to have a tattoo with homosexuality [rolling eyes] #anclgbt #
• Ossiander just called about 30 names & only 1 person showed up. #anclgbt #
• Bringing in paraphilias that have nothing to do with ordinance. Oxygen deprivation? Sorry lady but you’re um not very intelligent. #anclgbt #
• The Tuvinens support equal rights. I love equality loving Finnish Americans #anclgbt #
• One more page of names. Might finish testimony tonight. #anclgbt #
• There has been an incredible lot of powerful excellent pro-ordinance testimony tonight. #anclgbt #
• Assembly voting to extend mtg to complete the list. This is the last night of testimony. #anclgbt #
• RT @tonei: Cali has had a lgbt protection for 30+ years, has not been smited. #anclgbt or smitten? #
• Financial: how much does it cost the community for people to be thrown out of work or housing? #abclgt #
• Oh yeah billboards & nondisvrimination laws: what an apt comparison! Duh. #anclgbt #
• Heather about tobtestify. The last? #anclgbt #
• Nope one more after Heather who looks like an anti but Heather is great! Talking about Matthew Shepherd act #anclgbt #
• One more guy after this one I think. #anclgbt #
• Yep & my family being a wonderful family accepts and loves me their lesbian daughter and sister and aunt aren’t at all confused. #anclgbt #
• Public testimony closed, meeting adjourned, hurrah. #anclgbt #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Related posts:

1. The Daily Tweets, 2009-06-23 (Assembly public hearing #4)
2. The Daily Tweets, 2009-07-07 (Assembly public hearing #5)
3. The Daily Tweets, 2009-06-16 (Assembly public hearing #2)

@jansonjones Thanks Janson, nicel words to get the three hours of shuteye left to me on! (Hope my hands are functional tomorow!) in reply to jansonjones #

Anchorage Assembly meeting

• In Assembly chambers, been at Loussac abt 1 he. Pretty quiet, chambers not at all full. Mix of red & blue, blue in slight majority. #
• Lots of people in shorts & tees.
  Me blue shorts blue tshirt dark blue Alaska for Obama vest tan bball cap sandals. & Equality Works pin #
• Annoying red guy in front of me chewing gum w/ his mouth open. #
• Been forgetting to use #anclgbt sorry #
• Scuttlebutt is no more reason to fillibuster, so not so crowded. I’m out of touch 1st 3 wks did number on me (as well as my hands) #anclgbt #
• Annoying red guy in front of me chewing gum w/ his mouth open not so annoying now I realize he’s simple somehow # anclgbt #
• Assembly members mostly here & new mayor Dan Sullivan. His dad George vetoed first equal rts ord in 1975 or 76. #anclgbt #
• Blue tshirt I’m wearing with message “evolve love” I bought through Cafepress from an FTM fundraising for his top surgery. #anclgbt #
• Assembly mtg called to order. Sullivan being welcomed, Claman thanked for acting mayor & welcomed back to assembly # anclgbt #
• Public testimony not till 700 or 730. Chambers uncrowded I she have no prob attending town mtg outside then returning #anclgbt #
• Ordinance supporters: if you haven’t tetified come down sign up a testify. If you have testified get your friends. #anclgbt #
• There’s chance testimony list cd be exhausted tonight w/ possible premature vote. Put on blue come down testify yes on 64. #anclgbt #
• Big equal rights shoutout to Heather & John the Hawaii Honeymooners. The Assembly chambers just ain’t the same w/out you. #anclgbt #
• 20 minute break, Ossiander said Assembly may not get all the way through remaining agenda but seems at least some 64 testimony #anclgbt #
• Ossiander: “we believe we can zip through the rest of this agenda lockett split” – then 64 testimony #anclgbt #
• Regardless of testimony I will leave 900 no later than 930 – 1 hr sleep last night. Counting on Mudpuppies live blog @ Mudflats #anclgbt #
• Ord 83 discussion re illegal homeless campsites taking much time. I’m moved by the care of many here for big prob & people. But must go soon #
• I’m heading home for some time w/ Jesse who is down here 2 days. And sleep. Still not on ord 64. Will catch up on it later. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Related posts:

1. The Daily Tweets, 2009-06-23 (Assembly public hearing #4)
2. The Daily Tweets, 2009-07-21: Assembly public hearing #6
3. The Daily Tweets, 2009-06-17 (Assembly public hearing #3)

Into my email inbox about an hour ago came the following Anchorage Daily News breaking news item:

Breaking News

Gay-rights ordinance appears doomed

The prospect of a gay rights ordinance passing look dim as Anchorage Assembly Chairwoman Debbie Ossiander says she will continue to allow testimony from anyone who wants to speak on the issue, effectively preventing passage of the ordinance under the watch of a supportive city administration.

If you click through to the story now, you’ll find that it’s been retitled “Prospects dimming for gay-rights ordinance” — a renaming which occurred about 11:54 AM between me posting my first comment on the article (at 11:53:39 AM)  & my second (at 11:55:03 AM).

The story is by ADN reported Megan Holland — the same person whose earlier story, entitled “Residents demand to air views on gay-rights amendment”, prompted me earlier today to cancel my electronic subscription to the ADN.  Why? Because the story failed to make any mention whatsoever of the long-brewing issue of nonresidents from Mat-Su being permitted to testify — just more evidence that the ADN is falling down on the job when it comes to actually investigating news stories instead of acting as mere stenographers for whatever they’re being told by the people they talk with.

You might recall that I wrote a post about the Outside influence issue last week.  Fascinatingly, finally now in this doomsaying article, Megan Holland finally mentions the problem — the first time I’ve seen it mentioned in the ADN (unless I missed something — & I am willing to be corrected).  Holland writes:

Opponents of the measure have been organized, showing up by the hundreds, bringing in Christian youth groups, and busing in churchgoers from Mat-Su, some of whom work in Anchorage.

Wow, finally some acknowledgment from the city’s newspaper-of-record!

A few days ago a friend of mine wrote to the Assembly objecting to permitting the testimony of non-Anchorage residents.  He received a reply back from Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander, which he shared with me.  The pertinent parts (emphasis added):

The decisions on how best to conduct the hearings are made by the chair. I have taken into consideration the requests to limit testimony to residents of the municipality and have decided against that for several reasons. Many, many of the people who work and play in our town live in the Valley. Anchorage is a true regional city in the sense that its impact extends beyond its physical boundaries in many ways.

And so therefore those people who work & play in Anchorage but do not pay Anchorage taxes or vote in Anchorage elections should have the right to influence our elected representatives to permit discrimination against Anchorage citizens?

Try it this way:

Many, many of the people who work and play in our country live in Canada or Mexico, or hold green cards from other nations. The United States is a true regional power — in fact a world power — in the sense that its impact extends beyond its physical boundaries in many ways.

So let’s let Canadian, Mexican, & other foreign citizens come testify before Congress to influence U.S. lawmakers’ decisions about how to govern U.S. citizens!

I think not.

Then there’s the other issue the article mentions:

Some backers of the proposed law have accused opponents of filibustering — packing the hearing with opposition voices to stall the proposal until it falls in Sullivan’s term. Ossiander said she has suspected that at times but she has also heard very impassioned testimony that convinces her the issue is deeply important to people.

Jerry Prevo at Wednesday evening's Anchorage Baptist Temple picnic on the Loussac Library lawn. Prevo canceled ABT services that night in order that ABT members could attend the Assembly hearing.

Sure: the same impassioned testimony heard over & over from the same small subset of the Anchorage (& let’s not forget the Mat-Su) population, repeating the same talking points over & over again ad nauseum from the filibustering Christianists.  As John Aronno of Alaska Commons wrote in his account of Wednesday night’s testimony before the Assembly — the same night, you might recall, that Anchorage Baptist Temple pastor Jerry Prevo canceled evening services so that his congregation could head over to the Loussac to overwhelm the Assembly —

I was there from the beginning of the meeting at 4pm, and left shortly after nine-thirty. The “voices of the people” are not sending any new messages that need to be put on record. The “voices of the people” are now a loop.

And later,

I don’t know where we go from here. If there is an upside, it is in the clarity that the Assembly has offered us. They have made up their minds. They’re not telling us how they’ve made up their minds, but it is clear that the time for changing their minds has solidly run out. The first attempts to filibuster the discussion and subsequent vote on this ordinance continue. But, even more prevalent is the new tactic to literally strong arm the law. The anger. The bully mentality.

One should add that most of the people who testified Wednesday night were the last of the people who originally signed up to testify on the night of Tuesday, June 9 — & thus probably included at least some of those persons originally bused in or carpooled over from the Mat-Su.  Noncitizens that Debbie Ossiander persists in giving ear to.  Because the repetitive testimony, principally from congregants brought to the Assembly en masse from Anchorage Baptist Temple & other fundamentalist or evangelical churches, and some of whom are noncitizens of Anchorage, is — y’know — impassioned.  Well, filibusters usually do have something with group’s passion — including a passionate desire to run out the clock.

Debbie Ossiander is only cooperating in that, whether knowingly or unknowingly.  One rather suspects the former.  As a Facebook contact of mine wrote after the ADN doomsayer story came out,

I hate to say it, but I call it like I see it. It seems to me Ossiander is prolonging it so we can’t get it passed.

Yep, looks like it to me, too.  Assembly  Chair Ossiander has been uncertain in her own support or nonsupport of the ordinance, and by doing this “everybody should get heard even if they don’t live in Anchorage and even if they’re all repeating the same talking points over & over again,” she’s effectively also making it so that she perhaps won’t have to vote, and can escape unscathed from making a choice that will get her in trouble with either her conscience, or the conservative portions of her constituency.  It’s questionable, to say the least, if this is a responsibly neutral way to handle the chair’s responsibilities.

As Celtic Diva (Linda Kellen Biegel) wrote, the first of the reader comments on the Megan Holland’s doomsayer story:

If this doesn’t pass, I hope Alaskans will remember that Debbie Ossiander is the reason why:

1) She allowed all of the bussed in Valley people to sign up and testify. Gee, I wonder what would happen if I wanted to testify on and Ordinance in Wasilla or Palmer?

2) She continued to allow people to sign up for testimony every day they’ve had it. Since I was one of the last people to sign up on the first day and I testified Thursday, they’d be done by now and voting on Tuesday.

Darn betcha I’ll remember — and I’ll be doing my best to ensure other people remember as well.

(P.S. You must’ve been in a hurry, Linda: I think you mean Wednesday.  Though it was probably so late on Wednesday that it felt like Thursday!)

Related posts:

1. Outside influence
2. Assembly report 1
3. No, Debbie, Title VII does NOT prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment. Hello?

Anchorage Assembly meeting

• Surprisingly I’m in Assembly chambers – briefly. Not as crowded. Just heard Herman Coen & Shannyn Moore #
• My nephew (my bro’s son) & a couple of his friends are out by 36th – so happy he came! #
• Last msg before bed. Not liveblogging tonight on grounds of exhaustion. See Alaska Commons: http://tiny.cc/akcommons #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Related posts:

1. The Daily Tweets, 2009-06-16 (Assembly public hearing #2)
2. The Daily Tweets, 2009-07-07 (Assembly public hearing #5)
3. Liveblogging Assembly meeting, June 16 (Assembly public hearing #2)

Identity Reports (1989) and One in 10 (1986) -- click the photo to get to the documents

This automatically-generated compilation of tweets from my Twitter feed all are in regards to the June 16 Anchorage Assembly meeting — public testimony on the Anchorage equal rights ordinance. Later, when I have time, I’ll intergrate them with my liveblog from the prior post (& this will probably disappear as a separate post).

Update: Actually, given that more people are visiting this page (thank you, WordPress stats!), instead of going to the liveblog page, I should keep this post but give you a link to the page you now should be reading!

So see the liveblog here. It’s worth the clickthrough.

[Tweets removed from here & integrated to liveblog.]

Related posts:

1. The Daily Tweets, 2009-06-17 (Assembly public hearing #3)
2. Liveblogging Assembly meeting, June 16 (Assembly public hearing #2)
3. The Daily Tweets, 2009-07-21: Assembly public hearing #6

Identity Reports (1989) and One in 10 (1986)

I will be testifying about these studies at tonight’s Anchorage Assembly meeting. They are online by following this link:http://www.henkimaa.com/identity/. Liveblogging commences below. I will also be occasionally twittering at http://twitter.com/yksin which also updates my Facebook status.  This is partly to save power on my laptop — no plug in here so I need to conserve power.

Two other livebloggers sitting right next to me here: Heather James of SOSAnchorage.net — the good version not the Prevo antigay version and John Aronno of Alaska Commons. Check them out during tonight’s proceedings, too.

[Update: 6/17/09. I've just integrated my Twitter feed from last night into this liveblog.  Handily, my Twitter feed updates my Facebook status, & FB gives times so I was able to get this stuff all nicely chronological.  Tomorrow I'll have some observations -- not tonight, because I promised to get sleep tonight so my exhaustion doesn't crash me into a depression, which getting worn down can sometimes do to me.  Enjoy.]

Liveblog

Inset comments in green were via Twitter

• 328 PM. Outside assembly chambers. Many people in line. Now told they won’t open doors until 4:30. #
• 330 PM. Once I’m eventually able to sit down will live blog at henkimaa.com. As well as some tweeting here. #
• 428 PM In chambers. Ossiander’s new version of the ordinance throws gender identity under the bus. throws out employment protections. #
• 428 PM. moving to blog for live blogging at henkimaa.com #

4:30 PM. We were finally let into the Assembly chambers at 4:00.  By now the room’s pretty full. There are a few copies around of the new version of the ordinance drafted by Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander.  It’s not, from my perspective. good.  It removes gender identity, thereby throwing transfolk under the bus.  It removes all employment protections for sexual orientation in the private sector.  It does empower the Equal Rights Commission to investigate other discrimination on the basis of sexual orientations and also gender identity/expression, but does not empower the ERC to do anything about it unless it’s within the scope of the law.  Basically, it falls into a “let’s have a task force & study this stuff that’s already been studied & that we already know” end of things.  It’s unacceptable.  We need to go with one of the two prior versions.

Now 4:45 PM.  I’m shutting down for a little to conserve power.

• 501 PM. I’ll be trading off between liveblog on henkimaa.com & tweeting @yksin on iPod tonight to conserve laptop power. #
• 504 PM. Assembly called to order. Other biz first. Testimony begins 7:00 PM. New sign ups begin then. Still 250+ already signed up. #
• 507 PM. Ossiander thanked us for civility in chambers last week. Expressed hope outside people will be more civil too. #
• 514 PM. Ossiander explains all 3 versions of ordinance still in play. The one she did is not necessarily “it” depending on how debate goes. #
• 517 PM. Assembly now on other biz. Going offline for a little to edit my testimony for length. #

6:00 PM. Recapitulating I’ll be switching off between liveblog here & tweeting at http://twitter.com/ on my iPod Touch to conserve battery power on my laptop.  So check my Twitter feed too.  Other Assembly business going on right now. I’ve timed my testimony three times now & am pretty sure it’ll come under 3 minutes.  Took some photos.  Just checked other blogs & posted a couple of comments at Mudflats and Bent Alaska about my liveblogging activity & that of Heather & John.  Checked out Facebook & found some helpful advice & “I’m there with you” stuff from Jay Dugan-Brause, who was my coauthor on Identity Reports & headed up the One in Ten study.

I’m down to 69% on battery power.  Signing out, see me on Twitter.  My iPod doesn’t eat the power as quickly.  Later I’ll put the two sets of comments together so that this liveblog post will have a continous tale to tell.

• 610 PM. RT @Mudflats: i see rainbow flags at the assembly mtg! #
• 610 PM. @Mudflats when we waited in line to get into chambers it was heartening to see those rainbow flags out there in reply to Mudflats #
• 611 PM. Oops someone forgot to turn off their cell phone #
• 611 PM. Btw a minute ago posted brief update on henkimaa.com #
• 613 PM. I can hear people chanting outside. Heather next to me is listening to an audio book. I’m gonna go for a bathroom break. #
• 614 PM. I think just one more item before testimony #

6.50 PM. Just back from bathroom break, which was long because it was also an Assembly dinner break.  Testimony is about to begin.  I ran out my camera battery’s juice taking photos outside.  Let me tell you, my people know how to have a great time!  My people being not just LGBT but also our fantastic allies, throwing one heckuva great Pride party out there in front of the library on 36th Ave. Nearer to A Street, lots of mostly teenaged kids in red with preprinted signs who didn’t look like they were having half the fun that the LGBTA folks were.

First testimony tonight from a pastor who loves us so much he wants to tell us all about the great ministries and counseling available to help us deal with our sexual issues.  Or something like that.

Most people who missed last week’s testimony aren’t showing up for this week’s.  I expect to be up in about 45 minutes to an hour.

Now a self-identified Christian woman who is arguing very eloquently in favor of the full ordinance.

Now a guy with weird diagnoses of why gay people are gay.  [sigh]

63% on battery. Moving for awhile back to Twitter.

• 700 PM. RT @Mudflats: See giant sign that says “Jesus is Lord of Alaska.” #
• 702 PM. Just posted on henkimaa now back here #
• 704 PM. Young black guy who just finished had some really bizarre stars wonder where he got them. Pulled outta somebody’s … errr. #
• 706 PM. I guess this military landlord doesn’t like tattoos either. Wow and big applause from reds on the room. Birch letting him go on. #
• 706 PM. Birch is not a supporter prob. Now military is going on about pedophiles and necrophiliacs and bestiality none of which are in ordinance. #
• 707 PM. Harriet Drummond pointed out that stuff illegal. Go Harriet! #
• 712 PM. I’m about to testify three people away #
• 728 PM. Just finished testifying. How’d I do? #
• 730 PM. Barb now up – I Worked with her to prepare her testimony – she’s doing great. Good job Barb! #
• 733 PM. Does this guy even get that any time he mentions his wife he’s being publicly a heterosexual? #
• 734 PM. Jim Minnery: gays are great but discriminate against them anyway. #
• 738 PM. Rachel Runyan just now: great! #
• 741 PM. Jeff Mittman of AkCLU : discussing religious freedom issue to address misinformation from opposition. He’s a great ally. #

7:43 PM. Just spent some time over on Twitter, now on my laptop to catch up on what other people are saying.  Some great liveblogging entries from John & Heather.  How would it be if later (tomorrow maybe, after sleep!) I collated their live blogs w/ mine? as well of course of my tweets.  I’ve also retweeted a couple of Mudflats tweets, & am wondering if all the mudpuppies over at Mudflats are liveblogging the streaming feed of this hearing as they did last week.

I’ll be here until tonight’s adjournment at 11:00 PM, but tomorrow I’ll probably be outside.  Tomorrow’s testimony starts at 4:00 PM, when I’ll be at work, so I doubt I could get inside the Assembly chambers anyway.  So tomorrow I’ll just enjoy the Pride party outside, in hopes it’ll be as fun as the one I saw going on a little while ago during the Assembly’s dinner break.

52% on the battery.  Back to Twitter.

• 751 PM. Heather likes the photo on my Twitter profile. #
• 754 PM. I posted again on henkimaa a couple minutes ago btw #
• 756 PM. This guy wasn’t protected re his religious beliefs — which is wrong. But did he file a discrimination complaint with the ERC? #
• 758 PM. 2nd case he says he did and wasn’t taken seriously. Lynne next to me says she thinks he’s lyon. #
• 788 PM. Lying that is #
• 800 PM. Unitarian Universalists standing up for the ordinance. Go UUA! #
• 801 PM. I’m hungry haven’t eaten all day. Time for my protein drink. Oh yum….. #
• 801 PM. Lutheran for ordinance #
• 803 PM. Someone over by the acting mayor is having probe with tinny music being emitted from her computer. #
• 804 PM. This Lutheran pastor is great #
• 805 PM. Mmmm breakfast #
• 807 PM. Ooh hidden liberals on the Assembly! I’m skeeeeered! #
• 811 PM. One must take time out to get some exercise. I call it: “rolling my eyes.” #
• 819 PM. Guy now identified himself as a gay Eskimo – very well spoken. #
• 821 PM. Next up Sara Gavit from St Marys darn not allowed to speak for ill minister #
• 822 PM. Breakfast over. What’s for dinner? Still hungry. #

8:23 PM. Debbie Ossiander just explained that when you have a proposed ordinance with S versions — we now have two different S versions — that it doesn’t mean that the original version has been replaced.  Any of them could be the proposed ordinance that the Assembly chooses to debate & act upon.  This is a good thing, because Ossiander’s version is really horrible.  We don’t want it, for reasons already explained.

My friend Lynne just left.  I halfway feel I should too, because of how tired I am. Haven’t been getting enough sleep these last few days, what with blogging etc.  But I’m in it for the long haul tonight.  Maybe tomorrow night, since I won’t be in chambers, I’ll make it a shorter night.  However, now I’m finding my iPod Touch is getting slightly low on the juice.  So here I am on my laptop, currently at 46%.

• 833 PM. Sorry, lady: we can’t just like that give you discrim stats for 2008 just like that. Those studies take lots of time & money. Lotsa lotsa. #
• 835 PM. I count 6 new followers on Twitter now 7 since starting this tonight. Welcome! And whoa, Finland Blackjack hey there from another Finn! #
• 835 PM. More testimony at which one can only roll one’s eyes. #
• 837 PM. I see from my WordPress stats that my liveblog at Henkimaa.com isn’t as popular by far as my “new Carrie Prejean?” post about Mrs. Alaska. #
• 839 PM. Also prob not as as watched as my Twitter, so I’m guessing most people following my Assembly experience are following it here. #
• 841 PM. Woman testifying now about how Jay Brause & Gene Dugan mentored her heterosexual son when they ran Out North. A big shout-out to London! #
• 845 PM. Shannyn Moore opines that it’s time for Anchorage Baptist Temple to register as a political action committee. http://tinyurl.com/lfcegs #
• 846 PM. Chronicles wasn’t written to Christians. It was written to Israelites. You might be a pastor, but you sure ain’t no scholar. #
• 849 PM. Trini at Mudflats posted earlier I talked “about statistics (huge) of discrimination. (while wearing what looks like a prisoner’s shirt).” #
• 850 PM. haha i loved that: prisoners shirt. this is actually my favorite poetry slam shirt. #
• 850 PM. But big shout out to all the mudpuppies watching the livestream & liveblogging it. Looking forward to reading it in full tomorrow. #
• 851 PM. People who don’t know where that is: http://bit.ly/JuPSY #
• 853 PM. Quotes from Playdough? #
• 856 PM. Plato was a dork. He didn’t like poets either. #
• 902 PM. What gets me about these people claiming ordinance is poorly written is so many have probs ru bing two wprrds together. #
• 902 PM. Sorry about the twitted typos #
• 906 PM. This woman is pretty… um… not articulate. #
• 907 PM. This ordinance can’t wreck one woman one man language. This is a muni ordinance. That is a state constitutional amendment. Duh. #
• 908 PM. Lots of seats in Assembly chambers emptying. #
• 913 PM. That’s a state road sorry #
• 915 PM. Last guy was great. After this guy Mary Elizabeth Rider #
• 915 PM. This guy though makes no sense #
• 920 PM. Greenshirt employer is pretty ridiculous. Militia? “I’m sorry” – yeah you should be. #
• 920 PM. Go M.E.! #
• 923 PM. M. E. rocked! #
• 926 PM. Great testimony on psych professions on homosexuality. Liked what she said about LGBT witnesses’ dignity. #
• 930 PM. Member of Jewish community. I’m unclear if he’s clergy – ah he read rabbi’s statement. Now his own words #
• 936 PM. Ooh this guy was great. really pulled in the redshirts. though too simplistic to call what opponents feel as “hate.” #
• 948 PM. Good thing we don’t live in a theocracy especially not one eun by this confusing woman #
• 950 PM. Good job Prevo your website convinced this woman of how much this ordinance is needed. #
• 954 PM. This guy prompted me to take a nap. #

9:58 PM. I’m going glassy-eyed with a lot of these people. A coupla guys ago made me fall asleep. I wonder how many of these people in red are from the bused-in-from-Mat-Su brigade. Now this woman is going to take Julia O’Malley’s article & takes what Julia said about herself not personally having experience discrimination (Julie, btw, is daughter of Assemblywoman Sheila Selkregg), that somehow that wipes out the evidence of all the people who’ve stood up tonight & last Tuesday night to testify about the discrimination they had eperienced.  Now this next woman doesn’t remember ever hearing reading or hearing about homosexuals being discriminated against.  Hear no evil, see no evil: plug your ears, cover your eyes.  Hear only what you want to hear, & then tell lies about what you know.  Willful willful ignorance.

• 1009 PM. A pastor jailed for his sermons against homosexuality: “it cd happen here.” Oh yeah? Prevo, jailed for his sermons? I cd get down w/ that. #
• 1014 PM. Just caught up with John’s liveblog. Some very witty observations. #
• 1016 PM. “I’ve lived in Anchorage since 1951 and I see no evidence of discrim b/c I haven’t listened to last 2-1/2 hrs of evidence.” #
• 1024 PM. The Sports Authority shooting is relevant to this ordinance _how_? #
• 1029 PM. Red shirts all lining up #
• 1034 PM. Another person blithely ignoring any evidence that’s been presenting that contradicts her preconceptions. #
• 1038 PM. A lot of the redshifts are just meandering aimlessly taking up time on nothing. #
• 1046 PM. What a coincidence, Ive been propositioned by men when I was unavailable too. I never beat any of them & sent them to the infirmary though. #
• 1049 PM. Ten minutes of these tedious testimonies to go. #
• 1100 PM. Methinks Ossiander has lost track of the time. And here’s another of the hohum “special rights” testimonies. #
• 1101 PM. Three people to testify & then we go. All reds. #
• 1102 PM. If this was all a secret agenda thing to keep people from stopping it, why in hell are we all here listening to you blather then? #
• 1103 PM. Shutting down. out of here shortly, then to bed. #
• 1104 PM. 18 new followers on Twitter from tonight. Whoa, lots of interest. Are y’all mudpuppies? Sent me some @ tweets & talk to me. #
• 1104 PM. About to adjourn. yeah. #

Related posts:

1. The Daily Tweets, 2009-06-16 (Assembly public hearing #2)
2. The Daily Tweets, 2009-06-17 (Assembly public hearing #3)
3. The Daily Tweets, 2009-07-21: Assembly public hearing #6