By DAVID LIEBER
Staff Writer
 

The law, which amends the Maine Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a protected civil rights category, was set to become effective earlier this week. The Maine Constitution, however, stipulates that "non-emergency laws" may be prevented from going into effect if 10% of the voting population in the last Governor's race signs a petition to bring the law before the people in the form of a referendum. In a rare procedural move rarely invoked, the aforementioned consortium of organizations gathered the 59,000 signatures (more than 10% of the vote in the last Governor's race) necessary and the law will now be voted upon by the people of Maine.

The referendum asks "Do you want to reject the law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to jobs, housing, public accommodations and credit?"

A similar referendum was placed on the ballot in 1995. The infamous Question 1 would have prevented the legislature from adding sexual orientation as a protected category under the Maine Human Rights Act had it not been rejected by the voters in Maine.

Paul Madore, a Lewiston native and vehement opponent of gay rights, promises that a "kinder and gentler" approach based on "compassion" will guide this referendum. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Madore believes that a "kinder and gentler" approach to homophobia exists. Mr. Madore has the unenviable task of attempting to hide behind a cloak of tolerance while he simultaneously promotes a referendum that would effectively brand gays, lesbians, and bisexuals as second-class citizens.

This referendum is nothing more than intolerance masquerading under the rubric of "compassion." The consortium of groups that are pushing this referendum will make two arguments: 1) Gays and Lesbians don't experience the same prejudice as other groups protected under the Maine Human Rights Act, and therefore adding sexual orientation to the Maine Human Rights Act amounts to "special rights" not equal rights and 2) Business owners should not have to service homosexuals if they are morally opposed to their lifestyle.

I just wish the advocates of this referendum had been on the campus of Bates College this week, when an overwhelming majority of posters put up in Chase Hall by the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Alliance (GLBA) were either defaced or mysteriously disappeared. The right to freedom of speech has never been a "special right," at least in the Constitution I read.

The relentless zeal with which advocates have pushed their agenda ought to be proof enough that Maine needs a statute protecting citizens who may be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

What is even more disturbing is the practical effect that passage of this referendum would have; gays and lesbians could be the victims of flagrant discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and access to credit with no legal recourse. A restaurant owner who saw a gay couple exchange a kiss could refuse to serve them. A bank could deny a lesbian couple a loan merely because of their sexual orientation. The United States used to permit the private sector to conduct itself in unscrupulous ways such as this; it was called Jim Crow.

The notion that business owners should have the right not to serve certain people because they are morally opposed to their lifestyle is a frightening prospect indeed. Anyone who reads this article could deny me service at their establishment because I am a Democrat. My lifestyle could be a substantial source of contention for them. Should the way I conduct myself in the political arena restrict my freedom? Of course not.

So why then should what gays and lesbians do in their private lives be subject to more intense scrutiny? And why, for that matter, should what gays and lesbians do in their private lives be the subject of a public referendum?

The citizens of Maine must now decide whether they want to codify in law the intolerance and homophobia that this referendum breeds. And the students of Bates must decide if the egalitarian ideals that are the moral foundation of this college are important enough to foster in the larger community.