keesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris Keesan) (10/12/83)
News about legislation of note, reproduced without permission from the
October 6, 1983 Arlington (Mass.) Advocate
_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.