Assembly Democrats Renew Push to Expand Gay Rights

By MARK GLADSTONE

Feb. 9, 1997 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

SACRAMENTO — With a shift in power in the Legislature, Assembly Democrats are rekindling efforts to protect and expand the rights of California’s gay and lesbian population.

Los Angeles-area lawmakers are pushing several hot-button measures focused on the rights of gays to adopt children, register as domestic partners and be shielded from bias in public schools.

Critics of these efforts are pressing just as hard in the opposite direction to restrict gay rights. They are rallying around state Sen. William J. “Pete” Knight (R-Palmdale), who is expected to revive his measure to bar the state from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states.

If Knight’s proposal, which failed last year, falters again, the issue is likely to wind up in the laps of voters. Supporters acknowledge that they are looking at the strong possibility of putting an initiative on the 1998 ballot.

“Count on that happening if the Knight bill fails,” said Assemblyman Steve Baldwin (R-El Cajon).

He said a number of people, including wealthy individuals he declined to identify, have been talking about pursuing an initiative that could serve as a rallying cry for conservatives.

On the legislative front, it is unclear what will happen to measures backed by the gay community.

Baldwin predicts that supporters of gay rights will have the votes to pass some legislation, but state Senate Leader Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) doubts that any bills will be enacted this year.

“I think there’s some public ambivalence. There’s an overwhelming willingness to treat people fairly and not have government interfere in private matters,” the Senate’s most powerful Democrat said in an interview. “But I think there is also a significant number of people who would be unwilling” to provide “special treatment under the law.”

In a nutshell, the broad policy issue facing lawmakers is how gays and lesbians should be treated under the law. Should they be granted the same anti-bias protections in the workplace and school as racial and ethnic minorities? Should same-sex couples have the right to marry?

Last year, with Republicans in power in the Assembly for the first time in decades, the lower house passed a bill by then-Assemblyman Knight to deny recognition of gay and lesbian marriages performed in other states. But the heavily amended bill died in the Senate.

Now, the gay community is again poised to match wits with Knight, who plans to introduce his measure by the end of the month, as well as advance its own agenda.

Supporters of Knight’s proposal said they want to preserve the traditional male-female marriage in California. Republicans have targeted the issue even though both houses are now in the hands of Democrats, who are regarded as more sympathetic to gay issues. Democrats last fall won back the Assembly majority.

Some supporters of Knight’s bill would prefer the debate to remain in the legislative arena and are wary that an initiative strategy might backfire.

“Homosexuals could wage a tremendous ad campaign [against a ballot measure]. We couldn’t match that. They have tons of money,” said Art Croney, lobbyist with the Committee on Moral Concerns.

Knight said his first priority is to advance his bill.

“I think we need to take a good hard look at the legislation . . . gain as much support as we can,” Knight said, adding that “if it’s killed in the Legislature,” that would be the time to pursue an initiative.”

The gay community, too, is focused on its legislative agenda.

Ellen McCormick, a lobbyist for the Life Lobby, said the goal of her group, which represents gay and lesbian organizations, is equality under the law, not special protection. “We’re not looking for a Band-Aid for anything . . . but creating laws that work toward equality,” she said.

A centerpiece of the gay community’s agenda is a bill by Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), the first openly gay person to be elected to the Legislature. Kuehl’s measure (AB 101) would specifically bar discrimination based on sexual orientation in public education, including employment, athletics, financial aid, curricula and student activities.

“What I see happening today is that we are gaining ground” on the issue of workplace discrimination, Kuehl said. “My bill hopes to establish a very simple anti-discrimination policy in schools identical to the policies concerning race and gender and religion and ethnicity.”

Why is her bill needed?

“Kids are harassed, insulted, threatened, bullied. They are bumped, punched . . . barred from certain meetings and clubs,” Kuehl said in an interview. “Even at the college level, some coaches have said no lesbians can play on their basketball teams. And there’s no redress for these students.”

Assemblyman Baldwin counters that the goal of the legislation is to promote homosexuality, “not just tolerate it.” He dismissed the need for the bill, saying “it’s already against the law to intimidate or harass someone. . . . I don’t care if you are gay or straight.”

Among the other pending proposals that would affect gays, lesbians and others are two by Assemblyman Kevin Murray (D-Los Angeles), including:

* A measure (AB 54) to create a registry of domestic partners who would be eligible for certain benefits enjoyed by married men and women. Similar legislation was vetoed in 1994.

* A bill (AB 53) designed to reverse a proposed Wilson administration policy to prevent adoptions by unmarried couples--gay or straight. “Specifically, the bill would allow anyone who can show that they would be good parents to adopt a child in need of a home,” Murray said.

For more than two decades, California lawmakers have been grappling with gay rights issues as homosexuals have pressed for the same fundamental rights as other citizens.

Starting in the late 1970s, gay rights advocates began to lobby for legislation banning employment discrimination against homosexuals. In 1984, a heavily lobbied bill banning such discrimination was approved by the Legislature, but vetoed by Gov. George Deukmejian after much public soul-searching.

In 1991, his Republican successor, Pete Wilson, rejected similar legislation that was opposed by the religious right. But the next year, Wilson signed a compromise measure outlawing job discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Describing the state’s civil rights laws as among the nation’s toughest, Wilson’s spokesman, Sean Walsh, said the governor will address the gay rights issues on their individual merits. “We don’t play to any group,” Walsh added.

Walsh said Wilson continues to favor the Knight proposal and that the governor’s view on unmarried couples adopting remains unchanged.

“He believes it is in the best interest of the child to have a mother and father in the household and that that provides the best environment for a child to achieve his or her potential,” Walsh said.

McCormick said she holds little hope that Wilson would be sympathetic to gay rights legislation. “We’re not really counting on the signature of the governor for a lot of bills.”

Instead, she said, “we’re looking at change as something that happens over a long period of time.”