keesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris Keesan) (10/18/83)
The following is from the Thursday, October 6, 1983 edition of the
Arlington Advocate (Arlington, Mass.). Reprinted without permission,
but apparently not copyrighted.
_S_t_a_t_e _H_o_u_s_e _N_e_w_s
GAY RIGHTS (H 6665): House 75-71, gave final approval and sent to
the Senate, the bill making it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of
sexual preference. The measure would prohibit discrimination against
gays in housing, employment and other areas. The measure included an
amendment excluding two- and three-family occupied homes from the
legislation. Another amendment provides that an employer can fire or
refuse to hire an employee, whose job involves working with minor
children, if that employee has been convicted of a crime involving
physical or sexual abuse of a minor child of either sex.
Supporters argued the bill is landmark legislation which will
finally give gays equal protection under the law. They noted it will
allow the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to consider
discrimination cases against gays and said it is time gay citizens have
the same rights everyone enjoys.
Some opponents said the bill condones gays and will result in
Massachusetts becoming a "gay haven." They said "sexual preference" is a
broad term and would include not only gays but would protect people with
bizzare [sic] sexual practices. Others said the bill is not necessary
because there have been no examples of discrimination against gays.
A "Yea" vote is for the bill. A "Nay" vote is against it.
Rep. John Cusack voted no, Rep. Mary Jane Gibson voted yes.
MINORS (H 6665): House approved 106-40, a gay rights amendment
allowing an employer to fire an employee who engages in illicit sexual
activity with a minor person of the same sex under 18 years of age.
Amendment supporters argued this is a safeguard which will protect
children and allow the firing of someone who has gay sex with someone
under 18.
Opponents said the amendment is unfair because it singles out gays
and does not apply to sexual activity with a minor person of the
opposite sex. They claimed the amendment is vague, does not require
that the person be convicted by a court, and does not say who decides
that the person engaged in illicit sexual activity.
A "Yea" vote is for the amendment allowing the employer to fire an
employee. A "Nay" vote is against the amendment.
Cusack voted yes, Gibson voted no.