 |
Sloppy proposal reeks in timing, content, intent
PAUL JENKINS
COMMENT
(06/13/09 19:04:40)
Is anybody really still in the dark about why certain members of our august Assembly, at this particular time, are hell-bent on ramming through an ordinance adding "sexual orientation" to the growing list of behaviors and personal traits protected against discrimination?
The proposed measure, AO No. 2009-64 (S), was offered by Faux Mayor Matt Claman at a time when the city is up to its eyeballs in debt, has daily bouts of often-fatal gunplay and faces other serious challenges. Such as: Gee, do we really need fire trucks available all the time?
Instead of dealing with the myriad tangible, pressing issues at hand, Claman et al. -- and how many are in the et al. camp on the Assembly is anybody's guess -- are peddling a poorly crafted proposed ordinance addressing what essentially is a nonexistent problem. Has there been a rash of discrimination against gays? Do people seek them out to be mean?
Deny them housing? Refuse them loans? Fire them? Say ugly things about their shoes? Not so you'd notice. At a packed hearing last week on the ordinance -- about 88 of the 317 people who signed up to testify actually had their say; the rest get another shot Tuesday -- there was ample grumbling and various anecdotal accounts about such things, but few actual complaints filed with offices such as the Equal Rights Commission.
Despite that, despite the lack of a credible problem, despite protections already provided in the U.S. Constitution, the Alaska Constitution and the Municipal Charter, some on the Assembly are in an absolute tizzy to change the anti-discrimination law to include the words "sexual orientation."
That is defined thusly: "... Actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, 'gender expression or identity' means having or being perceived as having a self-image, appearance, or behavior different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.' " Good grief.
Proponents want to sneak the ordinance through before the duly elected mayor, Dan Sullivan, takes office July 1 to avoid any possibility of a veto. They even thought they would grease the skids by adding military veterans to the lengthening list of protected classes -- sans the Navy for reasons nobody can fathom -- to make it tougher for Assembly members to vote no. They amended them out of the proposal when veterans became irate.
What we are left with is a sloppy proposal that is a classic example of a poorly crafted, hurried piece of legislation with almost certain unintended consequences down the road.
For instance, what exactly does "perceived" mean? Perceived by whom? If I am denied a home loan and I "perceive" the banker is gay, can I sue, claiming that is why I was denied? Vice versa? The thing with lousy law is that it is open to interpretation by judges who too often are not even as smart as the people who wrote the statute. And lawyers? They'll have a field day.
Don't get me wrong. I oppose the proposed ordinance not because I oppose equal rights for gays or bisexuals or anybody else. We all have the same rights. Exactly the same rights. All of us. Get over it. I oppose the ordinance because it stinks. Timing. Content. Intent. Language. The weasel factor.
It all reeks, and its proponents on the Assembly have done the gay and transgender community no favors.
How the vote might go, if one ever is taken, is not certain, but this much is: Of the five Assembly members deemed most likely to vote for the ordinance -- Patrick Flynn, Harriet Drummond, Elvi Gray Jackson, Sheila Selkregg and Mike Gutierrez -- only one, Selkregg, is up for re-election in 2010, as is Claman, who cannot vote and will return to his Assembly seat when Sullivan takes his post. The other four face voters in 2011.
If the proposed ordinance passes and is signed into law, I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for any of their chances. In the end, it may be the best thing. This is, after all, the Assembly we got when we stopped paying attention.
There likely would be a measure on next year's ballot to strip the ordinance from the books, and that would bring many people to the polls who might otherwise stay home.
That could be a bad thing for some folks.