Tax for Roads Loses; Anti-Gay Forces Win : Bias: Passage of Measure N will repeal portion of Irvine law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In a blow to Mayor Larry Agran and the city’s political establishment, religious fundamentalists and conservatives scored a major victory in an unprecedented battle in Orange County over homosexual rights.

By approving Measure N, voters removed protections for homosexuals from the city’s 15-month-old human rights ordinance. It was the first vote of its kind in Southern California, and Agran, one of the leading opponents of the measure, labeled the outcome a “terrible setback.”

“This carves out a gaping hole in our human rights ordinance,” he said. “It destroys the whole ordinance and raises doubt on whether we do not discriminate against all people.”

The vote repealed a section of the law that bans discrimination, based on sexual orientation, in housing, employment and public services.

An elated Scott Peotter, leader of the Irvine Values Coalition, which championed Measure N, said the election sends a strong message to Agran and the City Council.

“This is great. I’d say it’s statement against what the City Council did,” he said. “It’s kind of like David vs. Goliath. I’ll sleep easier tonight.”

Election night was punctuated by the kind of emotional displays that have symbolized the campaign from the outset. A band of gay protesters burned a poster and chanted slogans at one point outside a victory party thrown by supporters of Measure N. “You have a very angry and bigoted and hateful group of people,” the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, a vocal gay rights critic, said of the homosexual activists from the Orange County Visibility League, who burned his poster. “From all appearances they are the first ones to deny First Amendment rights to the neighborhood.”

Sheldon and his supporters, waiting for election returns, watched from a private residence as 20 protesters blowing whistles chanted, “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, we are here to stay!” They demonatrated until Irvine police arrived. Nobody was arrested.

The Measure N campaign featured a bitter exchange of charges of deception between the opposing camps. The two sides raised at least $63,000 between them to finance a flurry of campaign literature and door-to-door canvassing.

The debate was watched closely by gay and civil rights activists around the country, who also were monitoring two related referendums in Northern California--one on an AIDS anti-discrimination measure in Concord, the other on a domestic partnership provision in San Francisco.

The Measure N election was seen as a key test of public attitudes toward homosexuality and of the strength of Orange County religious fundamentalists and conservatives, led by such stalwart gay rights critics as the Anaheim-based Sheldon and Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton).

Agran, a leader in the fight against Measure N, said during the fierce campaigning: “If we can turn back this measure, that sends a powerful message to these political bullies and anti-gay Neanderthals around the county that their kind of hate is doomed to failure, at least here in Irvine.”

Irvine in July, 1988, became one of about 60 municipalities around the country and only the second city in Orange County, following Laguna Beach, to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Critics charged that the ordinance carved out “special protection” for gays and lesbians, gave legitimacy to an immoral life style and threatened to make Irvine into “another San Francisco.”

“This is about a way of life,” asserted Peotter, a leader of the Irvine Values Coalition. In a fierce barrage of campaign mailers, pro-N forces portrayed homosexuals as promiscuous child molesters who posed a serious threat not only to community morality but also to public health through the spread of AIDS and other communicable diseases.

By contrast, officials with Irvine Citizens United refused to engage in point-by-point debate and instead painted the issue in sweeping terms of human rights and anti-discrimination.

Although there have been no official complaints of discrimination against gays since the city protection was passed, the ordinance’s supporters argued that it represented a powerful deterrent to bigotry in any form--against gays and non-gays alike. Others, however, said the lack of complaints showed that there was no discrimination and that the ordinance was unnecessary.

Times staff writer Lily Eng and Frank Messina contributed to this story.