Legislature OKs Bill to Protect Gay Students

SACRAMENTO —  Christina Smith came out in March 1997, and when her mother accepted her as a lesbian, the Monterey Park teenager figured the rest of the world would too.

Instead, as the news spread at school, taunts began to fly. Death threats followed, then an assault in a stairwell: “Getting beat up was bad, but the mental stuff--all that hate, the finger-pointing--is the worst,” said Smith, 17, a senior at Century High School.

On Friday, the Legislature gave Smith and thousands of her California peers a gift they have sought for years--protection under the law.

In one of the most dramatic moments of its frantic final week, the Assembly approved--by just one vote--a bill banning discrimination against gays and lesbians in public schools and universities.

The vote, which sparked cheers from some legislators and onlookers, caps a four-year battle by the bill’s author to give gay students a legal shield against abuse.

The bill has passed the Senate and if Gov. Gray Davis signs it, gay victims of harassment will have access to a formal grievance process used by students tormented because of their gender, race, religion or ancestry.

The governor’s position on the bill is unknown.

Friday’s action reflects, supporters say, a recognition of the need for healing during a year of hate crimes in California, from the burning of synagogues to the murder of a gay couple in Redding.

“This is a bill for all of you who oppose violence in schools, and discrimination in schools, and harassment in schools,” Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) said in urging colleagues to support her measure. “We make [kids] go to school. Let’s not make it a minefield for them once they get there.”

Opponents were fuming after the vote, in part because the bill was a recycled version of a measure killed by the Assembly in June. Proving once again that no bill is ever truly dead in Sacramento, Kuehl amended her legislation into another bill that previously dealt with school district transportation. Though not uncommon, that maneuver brought reproach from some Republicans.

“I will not be jammed, bullied or forced at the last minute,” Assemblywoman Charlene Zettel (R-Poway), who abstained from voting, said later. “We’ve got to respect our system and minimize power plays.”

Kuehl responded that the essence of her bill had not changed, and that Assembly members were very familiar with its contents, having engaged in a two-hour debate over it in June.

Opponents’ qualms failed to derail the bill, though the vote was a nail-biter in the best Capitol tradition. In the end, Kuehl persuaded one Democrat who voted no in June to switch his vote, giving her 41 ayes with 33 against and six members not voting.

The crucial support came from Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza of Merced, who called the new measure, AB 537, “a totally different bill.”

“This bill is about hate violence and protecting kids,” Cardoza said in an interview. “Anyone who can’t vote to protect kids in schools has to look at their reasoning.”

Four other Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the bill, including Assemblywoman Nell Soto (D-Pomona), who has a son who is gay. Soto said there is adequate existing protection for gay youths. As for her son, she said they had discussed the measure, but “he knows better than to pressure his mother.”

Opponents of the bill are taking no chances on Davis’ intentions.

“We’re going to bombard him with letters,” said Assemblyman Steve Baldwin (R-El Cajon), who characterizes the measure as an attempt by gays to promote their lifestyle in the classroom. “Davis says he’s a centrist. . . . Does he really want to sign something this radical?”

Kuehl, the Legislature’s first openly gay member, said the bill is needed to give students a formal, legal shield against abuse. Supporters say harassment and teasing, left unchecked, can escalate into violent hate crimes, such as those that have rocked California this summer.

A survey funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one in 13 students had been attacked or harassed because they were perceived to be gay. Four out of five of those youths were actually heterosexual.

“As a society, we pay a price when young people are assaulted and told in subtle and not so subtle ways that their lives are worthless,” Kuehl said.

In June, Democrats who were considered swing votes on the bill were targeted by an intense lobbying effort by religious-based groups, who mounted a radio campaign and took out full-page newspaper ads urging that voters demand that their legislators vote no.

A similar but smaller effort mushroomed this time. On Wednesday, Boy Scout leaders joined Baldwin at a news conference to denounce the measure and pay personal visits to lawmakers. Some legislators reported receiving dozens of e-mails as word of the bill’s rebirth spread on Christian radio around the state.

In reviving her bill, Kuehl narrowed its scope a bit, eliminating, for example, the prohibition against gay-based discrimination in school employment. Foes renewed their central complaint--that it defines gays and lesbians as a “special” class of people deserving extra protection.

“We shouldn’t create this limited laundry list” of students we set aside for special treatment, Sen. Ross Johnson (R-Irvine) said during the Senate’s debate over the bill Thursday. “We should endeavor to make sure every child in public school is protected from harassment for any reason, whether it’s their weight, their glasses, their religion or something else.”

News of the measure’s rebirth surprised and delighted gay youths. Jessie Funes, a recent graduate of Fairfax High School in Los Angeles said it would give students “tremendous help,” requiring “teachers and administrators to do something when kids face this horrible treatment.”

“This [bill] is something kids will carry in their backpacks, I guarantee it,” said Funes, 18, who added that she was pelted with rocks and suffered other harassment at school because she is a lesbian.

Smith said she is under no illusions that the bill will “suddenly make people open-minded.” Still, she believes it sends a message.

“It will make people think about the consequences of their reaction, and if the policy is enforced, that will help.”