Debate Over Bill to Ban Gay Bashing Takes Ugly Turn

The Assembly had not gone through a debate this mesmerizing in two years--two years to the day. And it was a debate over the same issue: gay bashing in schools.

The dialogue went far beyond gay bashing, of course, which everybody condemned. It got into God and what he allows and whether he actually creates homosexuals or whether they create their own homosexuality. It got into personal stories and soul-baring. It got into the voters’ will and who’s courageous and who’s cowardly.

It went on--and on--for 2 hours, 35 minutes, perhaps a record. And the debate went awry, like a bad binge.

One problem was a lack of consensus about what the bill actually did.

Backers insisted it merely banned discrimination in public schools on the basis of sexual orientation. The goal was to protect kids from getting beaten up or harassed. But opponents contended that’s already illegal and there must be some other “homosexual agenda.” This bill was 30 pages long, after all.

The confusion was aggravated by the fact that until the previous day, the measure would have barred any school activities or instruction that “reflect adversely” on homosexuals. Some interpreted this as “promoting” homosexuality. A religious group targeted Catholic Latino lawmakers with hometown ads, pressuring them to vote “no.” Finally, the provision was deleted by the bill’s author, Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica).

Assemblyman Peter Frusetta (R-Tres Pinos) poured fuel on flaming emotions when he questioned Kuehl’s candor. “The bottom line,” he said, “is do we believe Steve or Sheila?” Assemblyman Steve Baldwin (R-El Cajon) is a Christian fundamentalist who abhors homosexuality.

Frusetta is a lifelong rancher who, during the debate two years ago, rambled on about gay heifers. In last Thursday night’s sequel, he quickly assured colleagues: “No, I’m not going to talk about heifers.” He chuckled. It was the only attempt at levity the entire evening.

*

Kuehl and Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) are the first openly gay California legislators. Two years ago, when the debate was more dignified and amiable, they graciously accepted their colleagues’ personal affection, even from opponents. This time, they were having none of it.

Indeed, this debate had an unusually bitter flavor. Some highlights and lowlights:

Assemblyman George House (R-Hughson): “There is no evidence that a person is born with this tendency. The fact that many are reformed is evidence that’s not so. Are they born with bestiality? Pedophiliac tendencies? How about an adulterer and a fornicator? In some respects it comes from the way they’re raised, examples set. And that is our concern.”

Assemblyman Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch): “We [three brothers] fished together, boated together, surfed together through the North Coast and around the bay. . . . Spent countless hours in church as an Irish Catholic family. . . . [One] was bisexual [and] struggled with identity. . . . If my brother were alive today, he would want me to tell you . . . the violence, the anti-gay words can be very devastating.”

Assemblyman Bruce Thompson (R-Fallbrook): “We have been called [by the bill’s supporters] Nazis, racists. . . . The war has begun. This issue will divide this country and this state more than any other.”

Migden: “I don’t agree this has been a civil discussion. We’re compared with bestiality. . . . And a pat on the back later isn’t good enough for me. . . . My God, can any of you take in the magnitude of that insult? There is no plausible explanation except blindness, politics, myopia, meanness, undeveloped people, unconscious people, nasty, mean people--and I don’t mean to disrespect anyone. . . . How do you look at me [and] Ms. Kuehl and believe we are depraved?”

Kuehl: “When any of you say, ‘This is not about you, Ms. Kuehl. We like you, Ms. Kuehl,’ I want to tell you something, this is very much about me. This is about me in high school, about me being kicked out of my sorority at UCLA, about me losing my [TV] series, ‘The Dobie Gillis Show,’ because of my sexual orientation.”

*

Her bill lost. It needed 41 votes and got 40--four more than two years ago. Half the Latinos voted “no.”

Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-L.A.) lost credibility because he had been a strong backer and, during debate, had confidently predicted victory.

The Assembly lost collegiality. What started out as a congenial family argument wound up with people shouting and barely speaking afterward.

A similar bill will pass--perhaps next year, perhaps the year after. But it will have to pass with less rancor and more tolerance. There are deeply held views--faiths--on both sides that need to be accommodated.