Proposed Irvine Ordinance Sparks Gay-Rights Debate

A hearing on a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance in Irvine exploded into a 5-hour debate lasting until early Wednesday on homosexuality and whether homosexuals should be allowed equal protection under local law.

Three dozen people, many adamantly opposed to an anti-discrimination law that would affect gays, testified in the public hearing that began Tuesday night. Several business people also objected that the ordinance would expose them to more liability and create more burdensome paper work.

The City Council finally voted to create a citizens committee to present a revised ordinance on June 14.

In its current form, the ordinance would ban discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation or physical handicap. Enforcement would be left up to the plaintiff, who could use the ordinance as a tool in court.

The ordinance was submitted to the council by Irvine’s Human Rights Committee, which studied the issue of human rights for one year and concluded that the city needed to reaffirm its “longstanding commitment to the concept of an open city where all are welcome.”

Although the committee did not cite instances of discrimination in the city, it recommended that the council pass an ordinance.

State and federal laws already prohibit racial discrimination, but the Irvine ordinance would extend the protection to homosexuals. Also, federal age-discrimination laws apply only to people over 40; the Irvine ordinance would apply to everyone.

During the public hearing, people representing almost every affected group took the podium. At first, the testimony was congenial, as handicapped people and minorities congratulated the city.

“This measure gives a clear message that the city of Irvine will not tolerate discrimination,” said Mitsuye Yamada, who has lived in the city 16 years. “This ordinance protects your rights as well as mine and is progressive rather than regressive.”

Vincent Chalk, an AIDS patient who won a court fight to keep his job teaching deaf students in Irvine, testified that the ordinance was needed to prevent discrimination against gays.

“Having their rights denied leads to low self-esteem and a bad mental attitude,” said Chalk, who simultaneously used sign language for the cable television cameras.

A succession of speakers then denounced homosexuals, sometimes quoting Bible passages and claiming the ordinance would attract homosexuals to the city.

“If allowed to function in Irvine, (gay activists) would ‘share’ their life style with others, who become enslaved and in bondage to homosexuality,” said Laurie Whitcomb, 50, a private music teacher. “Irvine is a family community. Homosexuals cannot procreate. They can only recruit.”

Eleanor Petredis, mother of two children, warned that the ordinance would encourage homosexuals to become teachers and, she claimed, advocate their life style.

“The idea that my child would be taught alternative life styles is objectionable,” Petredis said.

James Boone, an Irvine chemist and longtime gay activist, compared the anti-gay sentiment voiced at the hearing to 1950s-era prejudice.

“These are the sounds of bigotry,” Boone said. “Gays and lesbians are not asking anybody to like us. We are only asking to be treated as any other citizen.”

Pat Callahan, a gay activist with the Elections Committee of Orange County, said: “We do not have the intent of infringing upon those people who do not approve of our life style. The gay and lesbian community is doing honorable work. It is not recruitment, but support for a group of people who have undergone considerable pain.”

A Santa Ana lawyer, Joel J. Loquvam, said he is handling cases against three Irvine employers, all involving allegations of harassment of homosexuals by supervisors.

During a break, Mayor Larry Agran said “homophobia” had overtaken some members of the audience. He said the ordinance is intended only to provide equal protection for homosexuals, who compose 10% of the city’s population.

James W. Meeker, a UC Irvine social ecology professor who has studied the issue, said 13 ordinances protecting gays and minorities have been passed in California cities, including Los Angeles and San Diego.

Another complaint came from some business people, who said the ordinance would create red tape.

David Hansbrough, 52, owner of a small engineering business, said state and federal employment laws already require painstaking record-keeping by employers. The local ordinance, he said, would require even more. Hansbrough added that the ordinance would encourage more lawsuits.

“One lawsuit not only will cost you $5,000 to $15,000, you’ll also have many hours of unproductive time being wasted,” Hansbrough said. “Businesses will collapse just because of such a local ordinance.”

Realtor C. Duffy Riebe complained that the ordinance is being considered without evidence that a discrimination problem exists in the Irvine business community.

“We don’t need this piece of municipal legislation that helps move our city towards a more socialistic government,” Riebe told the council.