Thursday, February 3, 2011

Anti-Gay Utah Representative LaVar Christensen Files Third House Bill That Appears An Attempt To Undo All Anti-Discrimination Ordinances In Employment And Housing Based On Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity, Wisconsin Representative Moore Requests That Dishonourable Discharges For Gays Under Previously Policy Prohibiting Openly Gay Service Personal Be Dropped, Tennessee Same Sex Couple Sues Neighbour After Enduring Years Of Police Documented Harassment Culminating In Arson

The Salt Lake Tribune on reaction to the three bills filed this week by Representative LaVar Christensen (Republican-Draper), advocates in Utah concerned that the bill could have broad implications for the gay community, from repealing city and country anti-discrimination ordinances to nullifying medical directives between same sex partners. Christensen, the architect of Utah’s constitutional ban on same sex marriage, says that House Bill 109, 182, and 270 simply codifies existing public policy and that no bill is targeted at unravelling existing protections for gay and transgender Utahans, saying “From time to time we need to take our core principles and assemble them ... as a public policy statement that’s easy to find so that you can uphold that.” However, Equality Utah, the state’s largest gay rights advocacy group, is worried that HB 109, the “Religious Liberty Recognition and Protection Act,” would undo ordinances adopted by 11 Utah cities and counties to prevent discrimination in employment or housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Clifford Rosky, an Equality Utah board member and law professor at the University of Utah, said “It’s very clear, given the political context from which (HB109) emerged, that it’s an attempt to repeal all of the municipal ordinances. It just happens to be a lot broader than that, too.”

The New York Times reports that Representative Gwen Moore (Democrat-Wisconsin) is urging that the Defense Department reconsider the less-than-honourable discharges to some soldiers under the policy prohibiting openly gay service personal now in the process of being repeal. Moore wrote Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that veterans who had received “other than honourable discharges because they are gay were being unfairly barred from access to medical care and other military benefits.” She told The Caucus that “Even after we have ceremoniously repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell, we know there are still consequences. For some gays and lesbians, the policy might as well have been – don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t provide veterans the benefits they earned.”

Tuesday, a lesbian couple in Vonore, Tennessee filed suit against their neighbour, alleging that the neighbour set fired to their home in September, and that the act constitutes a hate crime, reports WBIR-TV. After the fire, Carol Anne and her partner Laura Stutte found the word “queers” spray painted on the side of their garage, and according to the couple, their neighbour once told them “the only thing better than one dead queer is two dead queers. The Stuttes moved in their home in June, 2005, and police reports since state that Carol Ann and Laura were routinely harassed by their neighbour, but no arrests were ever made. According to court documents, on numerous occasions the neighbour threatened to poison the Stutte’s dogs, luring the dogs into the backyard of their home and feeding them meals laced with poison. One dog died after an incident. The documents also detail that the neighbour would come onto the Stutte’s property without their permission, and watch the couple through the window. The neighbour would threaten the couple, uttering statements such as they could have “killed them right then” and that “there’s bodies in these hills that no one will ever find.” The Stuttes decided to sell their home in August, 2010. In September, while on vacation, they were notified by fire officials that their home had been destroyed by fire. When they returned several days later, they noticed that their trailer had been vandalized. The Shuttes are suing for trespassing and conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malicious harassment.

0 comments: