Initiative Would Strike Out Protection : Irvine Voters to Decide Gay Rights Issue Nov. 7

The Irvine City Council on Tuesday night voted unanimously to place a controversial initiative on the Nov. 7 school board election ballot that would strip gays of protection under the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance.

“I’m just pleased we will at last get it before the community,” said Mayor Larry Agran, an opponent of the initiative. “Just like the council stood up for human rights, the community will have a chance to stand up for human rights.”

The ballot measure represents the first time in Orange County that voters will cast ballots on the issue of equal rights for homosexuals.

The initiative is the project of the Irvine Values Coalition, a group of residents who collected 5,433 signatures to require the City Council to place it on the ballot.

“I am very happy it is on the November ballot,” said Scott Peotter, a member of the coalition. “I feel confident, but there is a lot of work ahead of us.”

By placing the initiative on the same ballot with the school board race next fall instead of calling a special election, the city will save about $30,000, officials said.

The calm public discussion preceding Tuesday’s vote was interrupted briefly when Councilman Edward A. Dornan made reference to an assault of two gay men in Laguna Beach by three neo-Nazi youths, saying that the Irvine Values Coalition started its campaign around the same time.

Apology Demanded

Michael Shea of the coalition stood up and asked if Dornan was referring to the coalition as neo-Nazis and demanded an apology. Dornan refused.

Shea told the council about an incident in which two gay men verbally assaulted him and his wife, calling them discriminatory.

When asked by council members how he knew the men were gay, Shea said they admitted it, and he asked council members if they would lie about their sexual orientation.

Agran responded: “If it got you really exercised, I might.”

The initiative, if approved by the voters next fall, will remove the words sexual orientation from the city’s human rights ordinance. That ordinance now bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status or physical handicap in housing, employment, educational institutions and public service.

Further, under the initiative, the ordinance could not be changed back to include protection for sexual orientation in the future without putting the measure before the voters again. That would require another initiative effort by residents or a two-thirds vote of the City Council, according to the measure.

But City Atty. Roger Grable, in a report to the council, said that last provision for a “supermajority” vote by the council is in conflict with state law. The law requires a simple majority--three-fifths vote, in Irvine’s case--for such action, while the initiative would require a four-fifths votes, Grable said.

Consequently, if the initiative is adopted by voters, “the supermajority provision might well be unenforceable” if a council majority wants to put the issue before the voters again, he said.

‘Discriminatory Intent’

Agran said in an interview before the meeting that the requirement for a four-fifths council vote “clumsily reveals the discriminatory intent that motivated the document (initiative) in the first place. . . .”

“It’s saying, ‘We want to discriminate against gays and lesbians and make it virtually impossible for the city in the future to correct against discrimination.’ ”

The anti-discrimination ordinance was approved unanimously by the City Council last July.

Spokesmen for the Irvine Values Coalition have charged that the city has granted “special rights” for homosexuals and legislated morality. The initiative states that “sexual orientation has never been considered a fundamental human right” by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Extending “special protection” to homosexuals will burden the police and courts, the initiative says. It further states that people “should be free to make decisions and act in the interests of their own individual health and safety without undue government interference.”

But proponents of the human rights ordinance said the law provides equal rights, not special rights. They contend that the coalition’s efforts will effectively give residents and businesses the right to discriminate against homosexuals and have suggested that if such an initiative is passed, other minority groups could be targeted in the future.