Home  >  Nebraska  >  Lincoln mayor: There will be a vote on gay rights ordinance

Lincoln mayor: There will be a vote on gay rights ordinance

By   /   May 30, 2012  /   13 Comments

LINCOLN — Mayor Chris Beutler said today that Lincoln residents should vote on a proposal to extend civil rights protection to people who are gay or transgendered in the wake of a successful petition drive.

The Lincoln City Council approved an ordinance banning discrimination against gay and transgendered people on May 14, but organizers of a referendum delivered about 10,000 signatures Tuesday calling for a vote – eclipsing the 2,500 signatures needed. Shortly before the council vote, Attorney General Jon Bruning issued a legal opinion saying the city couldn’t legally add civil rights classes that go beyond what’s in state law, and at the very least, the issue should be put to a vote of the people.

The Nebraska Family Council and Family First Nebraska spearheaded the referendum drive. In the last few days of signature-gathering, the groups learned the city attorney thought the language on their petition was flawed, but he refused to tell them why, citing attorney-client privilege. That led to speculation that Beutler’s administration might mount a legal challenge to the petition drive – but today Beutler made it clear he doesn’t intend to do that.

“The people have clearly and fairly indicated their desire to vote on it,” Beutler said on Jack & John in the Morning. “I think it should be voted on.”

However, Beutler said he’s weighing legal questions about the language of the petition.

Vince Powers, a Lincoln employment lawyer and Democratic national committeeman, alerted the mayor to a potential problem with the petition. On May 22, Powers hand-delivered a letter to the mayor’s office telling Beutler he believes the petition language is flawed because Nebraska has a single subject rule that requires ballots to focus on one issue. Since the gay rights ordinance created two classes – sexual orientation and gender identity – Powers said voters should be allowed to vote on each. A voter might support protection based on sexual orientation, for example, but not gender identity.

Not long after Powers dropped off the letter, word of it leaked out of city hall to petition organizers, who quickly mobilized and warned Beutler not to thwart the will of people to vote. Beutler told KLIN that due process is important and he is trying to find a way to make the ballot language fair and proper.

“I don’t want to put something on the ballot that would be considered unfair,” he said.

It appears the most likely solution would be to repeal the ordinance and allow people to vote on a charter amendment in the spring municipal election.

Powers said if the issues aren’t separated, the election could be voided – as happened in a North Platte case in September, when the Nebraska Supreme Court voided an election in which voters were asked to vote on two unrelated issues related to how the city spends hotel tax dollars.

David Bydalek, executive director of Family First Nebraska, called Powers’ legal analysis a “huge stretch,” noting that there was only one ordinance to refer, not two.

“It is a tenuous legal theory at best,” he said.

Powers accused the petition organizers of spreading falsehoods about the ordinance by claiming that making an idle comment about opposing homosexuality at work could result in a lawsuit, for example.

“Any competent lawyer would tell you this isn’t true,” Powers said. “These are smart people who are blinded by their fear of homosexuality.”

Bydalek said that was ridiculous and that Powers is the one being blinded by his support for the ordinance.

Powers doesn’t expect anyone would sue under the ordinance because it included no provisions for damages or remedies.

“This is just a symbolic gesture,” Powers said. “It’s good; I support it, but nobody’s going to file any lawsuit under it.”

However, Bydalek said the city’s human rights commission can impose fines and take actions against an employer who violates such an ordinance.

“Maybe you don’t see lawsuits but you see businesses and individuals dealing with bureaucratic sanctions,” he said.

He thinks the mayor is considering lumping together on a ballot several protected classes that are already in city ordinance but not in the city charter – which Bydalek said would cause an uproar.

“I would not put it past them,” he said. Although he usually focuses on state issues, he said getting involved in Lincoln politics has been eye-opening.

“I was not aware that there was such a heavy-handed attitude or way of doing things over at city hall,” he said.

It’s up to the City Council to decide how to proceed, and Beutler said today he wants the council to resolve the issue and have a vote as soon as possible.

“Whichever way it goes, we accept it as the judgment of the democracy,” he told KLIN.

Reported by Deena Winter, deena@nebraskawatchdog.org.

By: TwitterButtons.com

Editor’s note: to subscribe free of charge to News Updates from Nebraska Watchdog click here.

Please, feel free to "steal our stuff"! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more

Deena Winter

  • http://aaronhouseholder.net Aaron

    Thanks much for reporting the Harris/Bydalek behind-the-scenes info I hadn’t heard yet. Illuminating reporting.

  • Truth-or-Dare

    It appears that the Mayor has had a change of heart and decided that there should now indeed be some open discussion about the petition!!! After all, the deadline for said petition has come and gone!!!! Ironically, it became safe to the waive lawyer/client privilege after-the-fact, especially since it is too late for any kind of correction to be made. BRAVO for the legal system!! Once again the double-speak lawyers score one for the establishment, and the peons are left wondering what in the H*LL happened!

    Was it really illegal to discuss the wording of the petition BEFORE the deadline, or was that just some legal mumbo jumbo? What happened to the lawyer-client privilege that was “exercised” so the petitioners couldn’t correct the possible problem in the beginning??? Guess the “privilege” only exists when needed by the lawyer/client; or UNLESS someone wants to use it as a legal maneuver to withhold information. You never know . . . perhaps it could have resulted in undue speculation and discouraged citizens who were getting petitions signed! I really don’t care one way or the other, BUT there is an appearance of less than honorable intentions on behalf of the city. Oh well, who in their right mind trusts elected OR appointed public officials anyway!

  • Mother Inferior

    “The Lincoln City Council approved an ordinance banning discrimination against gay and transgendered people on May 14, but organizers of a referendum delivered about 10,000 signatures Tuesday calling for a vote.” I am confused… Does this mean the signers WANT to discriminate against other people? Have they created a petition demanding the right to not treat people worse than how they are treated? Someone explain the logic here.

  • John

    Vince Powers is such a tool ! If he has such great in site, then why doesn’t he run for elective office. SO Sorry, Vince, making to much money off you clients? Good god, you really are a piece of work. Get back and start kissing some serious Demo butt.. Get ready Chris B., Vince is at your front door. Remember OPEN and TRANSPARENT.

  • James

    Mother Inferior,

    Here’s a question to help get the gears turning:

    When do heterosexuals obtain legal protection from discrimination… or, is this tolerance thing just a one-way street?

  • Jerinne

    @James

    Your question isn’t smart enough to get any gears turning.

    Heteros get legal protection at the same time LGBT people do. That’s why it’s called a sexual orientation ordinance.

    It applies to everyone. Sorry you’re not insightful enough to get that and to pose the ridiculous red herring of tolerance being a one way street.

    Let me guess… you’re a right-wing fundamentalist Christian who is the first to scream “victim” when other groups get legal recourse against the most wretched excesses of homophobia perpetrated by your friends.

  • Truth-or-Dare

    Name-calling is always a promoter for good conversation and debate, and I think those that have to resort to labeling people in order to feel better about themselves need to seek professional help!!! Perhaps if one would develop a sense of humor and recognize a “tongue in cheek” statement, this would be a better world the whole way around!

    That being said, perhaps James is more than PROUD of being a right-wing conservative that just happens to be a fundamentalist AND a Christian, and probably an all-around good person as well . . . . not a bad combination if you ask me! Maybe in the end we should all take lessons and learn to NOT be so critical of others which makes for a better community for all.

  • http://google resistwemuch

    Name calling is the coward’s way of avoiding intelligent discourse.

  • Watching From Lincoln

    I guess we’ll see just how many homophobic, prejudiced and bigoted people there are in Lincoln and just how well Nebraska Family Council and Family First Nebraska with their “religious” allies can flush them out of the woodwork to vote.

    I always find it perplexing that those who claim to be the most religiously “correct” so blatantly disregard the teachings of their Savior when it comes to tolerance of others, care for the poor, care for the sick and for others less fortunate than themselves. They seem so hell-bent to point out the sins and shortcomings of others that they totally ignore the most egregious of their own in the process. So quick to point out the splinter in another’s eye, that they ignore the log of hypocrisy beating them in the head.

    It is as if they have never even read the Bible, both Testaments, in their entirety on their own (we can not attribute that to their illiteracy, or can we?) – rather relying on “soundbites” of a few out of context words or a verse and the meaning thereof as told to them by somebody who they, rightly or wrongly, presume to be an “authority” on the meaning of those books on blind faith alone.

    Oddly, that exact same method of teaching “The Word” is that used in our Right Wing Evangelical churches is the same method used in the Madrases of Pakistan and Afghanistan to teach the “true meaning” of the Qur’an (or Koran) to the masses of illiterate Muslims who then go on to become the Jihadists on a mission to rid the world of the evil non-believers.

    So, I leave you with these two thoughts:

    First, what is so wrong in assuring that EVERY American is treated fairly and equally, as that is a civil AND religious foundation of this country? For if we allow discrimination against one segment, then what is to keep us from reverting back and start allowing discrimination against other segments that are now protected, since this State’s people deemed it “wise” to overturn EOE laws in a vote a few years back that allow just that?

    Second, Truth or Dare, since you stated in your last sentence, in whole and NOT out of context, “Maybe in the end we should all take lessons and learn to NOT be so critical of others which makes for a better community for all.” are we assume that YOU will be voting in favor of extending such protections to our fellow LGBT citizens of Lincoln so that we CAN make a better community for all?

  • Watching From Lincoln

    So, is the Christian Far Right (all denominations) the equivalent of being the American Taliban? Are their politico-religious leaders whipping them up to such a rabid fervor over what should be non-issues, such as LGBT rights, to distract their followers from the REAL crimes and travesties being perpetrated against these very same followers by their purported leaders – the draining of their wealth into the hands of a very few, the exporting of their jobs to other lower paying countries, the erosion of their basic Constitutional freedoms in the name of “security”, the massacre of thousands of our fellow citizens in foreign countries to ensure the profits of Corporations – Corporations that are demanding the rights of people without the responsibilities and accountability of people? Was Karl Marx right when he said that religion is the opiate of the people – that is it can be used to keep people in such a stupor (or fervor) as to not see or recognize what is actually happening around them, lolled as it is into a placid acceptance of whatever B.S. is shoved at them?

  • http://ProgressiveOasis.com Progressive Oasis

    There is so much religious dogma involved in politics nowadays, it must be time to start taxing churches. If they want to decide who deserves civil rights and who doesn’t, it is time to make them pay their fair share!

  • Kuhl

    What a novel thought, let the people vote. Why didn’t the Mayor say that in the first place? Maybe because the Lincoln Council and Mayor don’t think the people can make the “right” decision? Sad when the electoral process is viewed as a last resort instead of the first choice.

  • Truth-or-Dare

    Watching From Lincoln . . . I can only assume from your rants and accusations against organized religion that you and others like you would like to place the blame for “discrimination” against the LGBT community directly at the doorstep of the religious community!! When it is all said and done, is fair assessment of your position? Do you honestly think that if there was no organized religion that the gay community wouldn’t have any problems in society?

    What EXACTLY is your point with continually pounding the religious community?? Has it occurred to you that perhaps the religious community feels like they are being discriminated against BY YOU because of their religious beliefs?? That is like saying that if a LGBT applies for a job and is not hired, it HAS to be because the business owner/personnel dept rejected the applicant due to religious beliefs . . . HOW do you know that and can you prove it?? An ordinance will only protect you if you can PROVE it!

    If the gay community is looking for a single “whipping boy” for their cause, I guess organized religion is as good as any, but it seems to me that the problem is MUCH bigger than that! In fact, with a few exceptions, in the posts that I read regarding this subject, it is NOT the religious community who condemns the gay community. No, for the most part, it is you and those like you, who are projecting the blame for the plight of the LGBT community onto them for what you say they believe!

    After all, one can assume that even if there is a new ordinance passed, that those who currently speak out against the gay community, religious or not, will still retain their First Amendment right, and just because an ordinance is in place, it does NOT replace their right under the Constitution to voice their opinion!

    Here is what I am really wondering regarding the proposed ordinance: You have the right to be verbal and outline the reasons for your position through the news media, speaking at public meetings, demonstrations, and every other forum where the ordinance is being discussed. Do you think those who disagree with you, including the religious community, have the same right to present and justify their point of view??

    I am not saying that you don’t have the right to make your case, but it seems to me that you would be much more successful if you could find a way to do it WITHOUT purposely antagonizing a rather significant percentage of the population in Lincoln!