Despite the crowd that came to attend last night's meeting, I managed to snag a seat inside the main assembly chambers. The crowd within waited patiently for the assembly to work its way through the agenda. Finally sometime after six o'clock the issue of Anchorage Ordinance 64 was put before the assembly. All members were present as was Mayor Sullivan.
Dan Coffey introduced his Anchorage Resolution (AR) something or other. The resolution would authorize the assembly of a panel of six members to further study the (sarcasm on) "actual or perceived" existence (sarcasm off) of discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered people, as well as the possibility of conflicts with the Constitution. The assembly members praised the good intention behind Mr. Coffey's contribution, then voted it down. The general consensus was that Anchorage had spoken and the citizens wanted a vote. No muss. No fuss, just git 'er done.
After that bit of business was dispatched, AO 64, version S-2, was placed before the assembly for a final vote. Each assembly member gave their testimony and revealed how they intended to vote. Many of the testimonies were very emotional and passionate. Ms. Gray-Jackson broke down into tears when she spoke of her gay nephew and her desire to see him protected. Assemblyman, Patrick Flynn, shared with the assembled crowd, the contents of a letter from his postman. The postman, described by Mr. Flynn as having provided excellent service to the public for many years, had written Mr. Flynn a brief note to say that he had left the state after retirement in favor of a more open and progressive city down south. And in a very surprising and poignant speech, Assemblywoman, Jennifer Johnston, spoke of the person who inspired her to enter public service. "That person did more for his community, for the state and country than I could do in 10 lifetimes, but that person's life was short, it was cut by suicide, and I've often wondered if that person had been born 60 years later if the outcome would have been different," The room remained silent with only a few murmurs from the red shirts who were beginning to realize the vote would not go in their favor.
Other assembly members stated why they would vote no on the ordinance. Mr. Starr said he felt compelled to honor his religious beliefs and follow the wishes of his constituency. They didn't want a yes vote and neither did he. Mr. Coffey, always the lawyer, launched into a lengthy spiel about language, lawsuits, and the need to move cautiously. Assemblywoman Ossiander concurred with him, but provided specific details within version S-2 that with which she most disagreed. She too was quite emotional as she announced her intent to vote no. "This is a hurtful thing to do and I'm trying not to look at certain people in the audience right now, but I'm not going to be supporting this," was her honest and heartfelt statement. I honestly cannot recall what Mr. Birch said in explanation of his vote of no, but I am sure he felt strongly about it as well.
One comment that stood out above the rest in terms of "good ole practicality" came from Assemblywoman Harriet Drummond who said something to the effect of, "I cannot and will not send 50,000 students, who have been taught in our school system to treat each other with respect, out into a city that continues to discriminate." Thank you Ms. Drummond.
Just before the final vote was tallied, Assemblyman Guttierrez took a few moments to praise Assemblywoman Ossiander for her contributions as chair and moderator during the many hearings. Though many have disagreed with her decision to allow non residents to testify at the hearings, Ms. Ossiander kept the peace and dealt fairly with each person who testified during those many, painful long hours. The crowd stood up and rendered to her enthusiastic applause, and I must note that those wearing blue shirts stood up first with a good portion of those in red shirts reluctantly following suit. Ms. Ossiander smiled very gratefully, and seemed genuinely surprised.
The votes were tallied on the big screen and the ordinance was passed. Only four voted against the bill: Birch, Ossiander, Coffey and Starr. No sooner had the ordinance been passed, when Assemblywoman Selkregg moved to introduce two amendments to the ordinance. Both amendments included phrasing that clarified the right of employers to maintain separate bathrooms and uphold standards of behavior and dress codes. Mr. Guttierrez seconded the motion, the assembly voted and the amendment was added to version S-2. Ms. Selkregg then called for a re-vote on the newly amended ordinance, however, no one chose to change their original vote.
For several moments after passage of the ordinance, the crowd remained very quiet. Only a few disappointed moans issued from the group of individuals in red sitting in front of me. Very slowly those who came to hear the final vote filtered back out into the lobby. No harsh words were spoken. No cross looks exchanged. No one broke out in cheers. Groups of people exchanged hugs. Others simply huddled quietly together discussing the unfavorable outcome. The whole affair took place peacefully in the best tradition of public assembly and government.
In our near past, change, both good and bad, has come in punctuated bursts, fits and starts, and seldom lasted or made any real impact on the issues they addressed, but a new era may be emerging: one where change occurs more slowly, solutions are achieved more thoughtfully, and the outcomes produce more lasting results as citizens relearn the art of public discourse, as we re-learn the ins and outs of our own government, and as we take risk and expose ourselves to criticism, and sometimes outright anger. These are passionate times because people must deal with problems left unresolved after decades of chest pounding and empty promises. Citizens realize that we must step in and take a greater interest in how our government functions, as well as how our lives are impacted by business. We begin to see the weaknesses, and we begin to discern for ourselves who in civics and business serve with distinction, govern apathetically or seek only to serve themselves, and their own best interests.
Whatever may happen next with this ordinance, I am happy this day, this moment. I remember the outcome of a similar attempt to secure equal protection in 1993, and I find little to compare between what has transpired in the past months to what transpired over a decade ago. The gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans-gender community has grown stronger, our friends and relatives have become fiercely outspoken with their love and support, and in general the community has become more accepting. I realize some, perhaps many might disagree, and I respect those views, but many others have felt the shift in the social attitude, and have chosen to drop their guards and make the attempt to bridge a gap that has fractured our city for too long.
To express the sentiment of so many as they made their way back to cars, bikes and buses, I am happy for what we have achieved today, regardless of what may be faced tomorrow. No veto can erase the achievements of so many who put so much on the line. And for those who couldn't come forward, I send my love to you, and hope with all my heart that one day we will all be able to openly make the artistic, financial and volunteer contributions to this city that for years have been made in desperate, patient silence. |
