Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 02:06:57 -0400
From: ac245@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Tina M. Wood)
Subject: RI Civil Rights Bill passes committee


Good news from RI:  the sexual orientation civil rights bill has
passed the Senate special legislation committee unamended.  It now
goes to the full Senate, where it will be voted upon this Friday (5/19).
The Senate is supposed to convene at 4:00pm.  If anyone near the
area would like to come watch, I will be happy to provide directions.

So here are some of the details.  The first senator to speak was
Michael DeBatt, who was undecided until now.  He thanked the
proponents of the bill who had spoken with him, and he specifically
cited my mother-out-law, Lois, who had hosted a coffee
hour with some of his constituents.  He then explained that although
he wanted in his heart to vote yes, he felt that he must vote no
on this particular bill.  He claimed that the bill had provisions
that are not included in the similar laws in the 8 states that
have the laws.  He also expressed concern that there was potential
for people to abuse this law, i.e., how do you know if someone is
gay?   I was extremely disappointed and angry with him.  I felt
sure that what he said was bogus, that the real reason is that
he is being pressured by Senate minority leader Michael Flynn to
vote no.  However, Jim Stascavage, who is in charge of lobbying for
the Alliance for L/G Civil Rights, believes that DeBatt feels very
bad right now and that he could still be swayed to vote differently
on the full Senate vote.  Kate called a bunch of his constituents
tonight, so we will see how it pans out.

Senator Helen Mathieu, a bitter opponent of the bill, tried to offer
amendments.  The tension between committee chair Maryellen Goodwin and
her was readily apparent.  Mathieu essentially accused Goodwin of
not letting her have her say, a charge which Goodwin professionally
denied.  It's pretty obvious those two don't like each other.  Mathieu
prefaced her amendments by denying that she was trying to kill the
bill with them (yeah, right).  She first tried to offer one that would
have exempted basically any organization/business that works with young
people.  It mentioned non-public daycare centers along with a long list
of others.  This was an expanded version of the "Boy Scout amendment."
Committee members pointed out that this was much too broad.  They
also cited the fact that 38 different youth services organizations had
signed onto a statement saying that they did not want to be exempted
from the law; only the Boy Scouts testified that they wanted an exemption.
When she realized that even the senator who seconded the amendment 
(Sen. Stephen Alves) did not support it, she withdrew it.  Alves then
wanted to introduce a narrower amendment to exempt scouting organizations,
but he was not yet ready; so Mathieu moved on to the next amendment.
This amendment would have added an exemption for "members of religious
organizations."  Mathieu tried to paint this as a compromise from a
similar amendment in the past which said "followers" instead of "members."
No one on the committee bought this at all, and it went down to defeat.
The only ones who voted yes were Mathieu and Michael Flynn.  Alves then
tried to introduce his scouting amendment.   The language he initially
used was "scouting organizations," but some pointed out that the Girl
Scouts have a non-discrimination policy which includes sexual orientation,
and that they did not ask to be exempted from this.  He then narrowed it
to just the Boy Scouts.  After some discussion (and posturing, of course),
the vote on whether to add this amendment was taken.  I was disappointed
that Michael DeBatt voted yes on the amendment; it does not make a lot
of sense to add an amendment to a bill you plan to vote against, so his
vote on this smacked of kowtowing to the opposition, in my opinion.  I
was very happy, however, to note that Sen. Eleanor Sasso, whose position
was unknown until now, voted no on the amendment.  The amendment did not
pass.  I note here that Sen. Michael Lenihan was absent up until right
after the vote on the amendment was taken.  He came into the meeting 
in time to vote on the bill itself.  The vote on the bill came soon
after the vote on the amendment, and I was thrilled to hear Eleanor
Sasso vote yes on the bill.  I feel a lot more secure about the final
outcome now that I know she is still on our side.  My senator, Daniel
Issa, voted yes for the Boy Scout amendment and no on the bill, as he
has in the past and was expected to do.  He did however tell a pro-gay
Catholic priest who visited him today that his no is getting weaker
every year.  I do not really know what to make of Issa, though, since
he also told this priest that homosexuality was an abomination.  Since
he did not indicate to me on the phone last night that this was his
opinion, I suspect he is a little two-faced.  Go figure.

The final hurdle, the full Senate vote, is in two days.  The fact that
the Boy Scout amendment has been considered and rejected in committee is
a very good sign because it's *possible* that as a result, it won't be
considered by the full Senate.  We're not taking anything for granted,
though.  We have told DeBatt's constituents to stress to him that voting
yes on the Boy Scout amendment might give people the wrong idea about him
(i.e. might give people the idea that he supports discrimination in his heart,
which he insists he does not).  The question of other senators' reactions
to the Cincinnati ruling is still up in the air too although it was not
mentioned at all in the committee today.  We have some strong allies in
the Senate who are lawyers, so hopefully they will be able to clear that
up.  Also, Sen. John Roney, a member of this committee, gave some *very*
powerful testimony about a lesbian friend of his at the House hearing.
He has not yet told this story to his committee or to the Senate, and I
think it might even be enough to sway some wavering people.  He is also
a strong and wise ally in general, so I know he will fight for this.

Integrity had its prayer vigil tonight after the committee vote.  One of
the prayers offered up was that God send someone to the opponents who
could sway them to vote for the bill.  I think that is an interesting
and very applicable prayer.  Below, I will post a list of expected 
opponents of the bill.  Along with them, please keep Sens. Sandra
Hanaway (still an unknown) and Michael DeBatt in your prayers.

List of senators believed to oppose this bill:  Maryellen Goodwin (who
did vote no on it in committee), Dominick Ruggerio, Catherine Graziano,
Edward Holland, Robert Palazzo, Edward Lawrence (he is the one who
brought up the Cincinnati decision in the hearing on Monday), Michael
McCaffrey, William Walaska, Stephen Alves, Jennie Day, Leo Blais, 
Michael Sullivan, Joseph Polisena, Michael Flynn, Roger Badeau, Daniel
Issa, John Celona, Joseph Montalbano, Bradford Gorham, Helen Mathieu.
It's possible that I may be leaving some out, but I think that is all
of them.

Thanks very much.  I hope we will have some good news for the nationwide
LGBTetc community on Friday!

Tina W.