HB99

[LeahMira]

House Bill 99 would prohibit discrimination against persons on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, public works contracting, public accommodations, and insurance. It was introduced in February of 2003 and has been languishing in the state legislature ever since.

Basically, the bill inserts the term "sexual orientation" into several sections of the Delaware Code that deal with discrimination. It specifically exempts religious organizations and agencies from its requirements except insofar as that religious organization receives public tax support or generates income subject to taxation. It specifically states that partner benefits for employees comparable to those given married couples are not mandated by the terms of the bill. It also defines sexual orientation as meaning heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual orientation, whether real or perceived.

The list of amendments proposed for this bill read, for the most part, like a list of the most irrational fears of the most weirdly imaginative among us.

HA1 stipulates that situations in which nonheterosexual orientation is advocated or in which minors are likely to be present are exempted from the terms of the bill. This amendment was stricken.

HA2 reiterates the "right" of religious groups to be exempt. This amendment was passed.

HA 3 disavows any implication the bill might have to the effect that sexual orientation is inborn. This amendment was stricken.

HA 4 stipulates that public schools may not teach about nonheterosexual orientation or behavior. This amendment was stricken.

HA 5 places the burden of proof of discrimination on the plaintiff, limits damages to compensation and does not require remedial measures be taken to eliminate further discrimination, and validates the right of employers to have dress codes in the workplace. This amendment was stricken.

HA 6 insists that the provisions of the bill must be construed as narrowly as possible. This amendment was stricken.

HA 7 reaffirms the employment-at-will doctrine of Delaware law. This amendment was stricken.

HA 8 is a rehash of HA 1 down to the exact words. It also was stricken.

HA 9 again rehashes HA 1. This time, the amendment was passed.

HA 10 is an attempt to delete the phrase "whether real or perceived." It was defeated.

HA 11 again attempts to prohibit public schools from teaching about nonheterosexual orientation or behavior, and this time the amendment was defeated.

HA 12 again would prohibit a court from ordering any "nonprevailing party" (i.e. losers) to institute remedial measures such as hiring plans, hiring goals, or hiring targets for future hiring based on sexual orientation, and also includes the right of employers to have a dress code. This amendment was passed.

HA 13 stipulates that the provisions of this bill do not invalidate any other provisions of the Delaware Code or the employment-at-will doctrine. This amendment was passed.

On to the State Senate, where SA 1 strikes the phrase "whether real or perceived," and SA 2 makes it even more clear that Delaware's public schools may not teach about nonheterosexual orientation or behavior.

Interestingly, of the thriteen House Amendments, ten were sponsored by Representative Smith.

Anyhow, let's look at what we have after all the amendments have been voted on, either up or down. Essentially, we have a bill that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the public arena. It specifically exempts religious groups insofar as they are operating under the non-profit umbrella of religion. It also exempts those non-religious groups whose mission is to advocate for heterosexual behavior or those whose constituency is a group of minors. It specifically states that even when it is proved that an employer or organization has been discriminatory, it is not required to change its policies for the future.

And what are Rep. Smith and those who apparently have his ear so afraid about with reference to this bill? Clearly they don't want anyone to jump to the conclusion that sexual orientation is inborn. That would leave them free to try to change it, I suppose. Also clearly, they don't want children exposed to any information about homosexuality or bisexuality, even in high school. Heaven forbid that children might get the idea that such behavior is normal, or that there might be others "out there" who understand. These folks also insist that the burden of proof for discrimination be on the individual making the charge, and that those individuals' perceptions of discrimination don't matter. I suppose those who are injured are just "too sensitive" to understand the ethos of the good ol' boys in Delaware.

Senator James T. Vaughn, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a Democrat from the Clayton-Smyrna area. He will not release this bill for a vote in the Senate until he has time to read it carefully to make sure that no one could possibly interpret it in such a way as to permit same-sex marriages. Delaware Code already prohibits same sex marriages.

Rep. Wayne Smith, BTW, is a Republican from Brandywine Hundred North (lest anyone think that only those in "slower Delaware" have medieval mindsets.

But imagine if the "group" targeted in this bill were African-Americans or Asian-Americans whose race is not "chosen," or perhaps even Jews or Muslims who do "choose" their behavior and orientation. Would we stand for a bill that prevented students from learning about that group of people... their history, literature, culture and beliefs? Would we demand that the minority individual bear the burden of proving that discrimination against themselves was real, and not just "perceived?" In fact, isn't affirmative action a remedy proposed in part to prevent the necessity of proving discrimination?

Someone wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper not long ago claiming that there is no need for this bill. In fact, watered down as it now is by the amendments that have passed (after several tries and apparently unrelenting agitation from the right wing), it is now almost gutless. But discrimination against any group of people is still discrimination. It's actually too bad that legislation needs to be written to guarantee equal rights for people who are homosexual or bisexual in this day and age, but so long as people won't act humanely on their own volition, laws are needed to ensure that they act humanely from fear of legal consequences.

Time to let Delaware Senators know how we feel. Delaware's nickname is "the First State" because it was the first to ratify the U.S. Constitution. How shameful that the state now shows itself to be among the last to extend equal rights to all its citizens. Because it really is that simple and that basic.

You can find more information about the "cast of characters" (contact info, etc.) here: http://www.legis.state.de.us/Legislature.nsf?Open
Click on the "Bill Tracking" button and fill in HB 99 to see the bill and amendments.

C'mon, Delaware DU! Let's do it.

[sui generis]

1. it has occurred to me

from experience, that being born Jewish doesn't necessarily make one Jewish (and I'm not from the Cohan gene line). I don't practice any religion, by choice. All "cultural" tradition aside, if I didn't know I was born Jewish I still wouldn't prefer to be Jewish, whether or not society at large deemed it was a moral issue or that I might persuade minors to themselves become Jewish. (sarcasm)

That stands in great contrast to being born gay and being told that merely because my skin color isn't "racially" different (what color would that be anyway?) it must therefore be a choice, especially since society at large does indeed regard being born this way as immoral.

"whether perceived or not", also means that you can be an asshole to someone merely because you think they're queer, and get away with not having to make any changes in how you deal with people. I would love to submit a "reverse" piece that replaces the word homosexual with heterosexual and see if it meets everyone's tests for fairness.

I agree - the fight must continue and we must take no prisoners, accept no compromises. As an American, I am really tired of being told that a bunch of self-proclaimed "moral" uptight stifled old men (and women) really know what's best for me on an issue that couldn't impact their lives less, except to codify the right to discriminate against someone. I hope the Delaware legistlature and people come to their senses and sign something with teeth against discrimination.