Baltimore Passes Homosexual Rights Bill

Special to The Wanderer
June 2, 1988.

The Baltimore, Md., City Council on May 23rd passed a homosexual rights bill by a vote of 12 to .7. The law adds the phrase "sexual orientation" to the laws that forbid discrimination in employment, education, and housing on account of race, religion, natural origin, or sex.

Archbishop Borders had issued a statement that he "could not support" such a bill, and the City Council heard 18 witnesses for the bill and 118 against. Gene Antonio, author of The AIDS Coverup?, testified against the bill, as did Scott McGregor, former Oriole pitcher who is now in a youth ministry at Rock Church in Towson, Md.

Borders in an open letter to Mayor Schmoke and City Council President Mary Pat Clarke said that he recognized "the good that City Council bill no. 187 is intended to effect." However, Borders went on, he "could not support" the bill because he was concerned about "the growing national movement to recognize and legitimize homosexuality and bisexuality as acceptable life-styles." Borders had actively opposed the bill in 1980 and remained neutral in 1985.

Opposition to the bill was led by FAME (Families Against Moral Erosion). The chief spokesmen for this coalition were Bill Wingard of the Lamb of God Catholic charismatic community and Rabbi Yisreal Reznitsky, an Orthodox Jewish leader. Dr. Leon Podles, president of the Maryland Chapter of Catholic Parents United, is also a member of the coalition. Bill Wingard noted that the bill was passed because its backers succeeded in depicting it as an "antidiscrimination" measure.

Michael Olive, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun (which supported the bill) credited the homosexuals' success to their becoming "more sophisticated politically." After defeats in 1980 and 1985, they turned to the political techniques of campaign donations' ($7,000 according to one report) and volunteering to work in the campaigns of Mayor Schmoke, City Council President Clark, and four councilmen. They also had a lobbyist working in the City Council for several years.

Carl Stokes, a black, Catholic City Councilman who represents the district with the heaviest concentration of homosexuals, said that he voted for the bill because he disapproved of any discrimination. He said that he was aware the homosexuals in Baltimore were economically successful, and had an income higher than the city average.

Stokes said that he had discussed the bill with Auxiliary Bishop John Ricard months before the vote. He said that the City Council took note of the important fact that Borders said he "could not support" the bill, and did not say that he opposed the bill. He said that the City Council thought it highly significant that no one at the City Council had gotten a telephone call from the Archbishop about the bill. Stokes said it was normal for the Archbishop to call Council members about a bill he thought was important.

Podles of Catholic Parents United said that the opponents of the homosexual rights bill had been outmaneuvered politically. He said the success of the bill after two previous failures was due to a careful orchestration of the issue by the Sun papers, the mayor, the City Council president, and the lack of effective opposition from the Archdiocese.

Podles pointed out that the only newspaper articles on the bill in the Baltimore Sun before the week of the hearings said that the hearings would be held in June and the final vote in July. Suddenly, without any comment by the media, the hearings were moved up to May 12th, with the first vote on May 16th and the final vote on May 23rd, the minimum time frame allowed by law. Rabbi Reznitsky also complained of the bill: "It has been railroaded through."

Podles pointed out that the Baltimore Sun had never mentioned the Georgetown University case in connection with the Baltimore homosexual rights bill.. More surprisingly, the Baltimore Catholic Review also did not alert readers to the dangerous precedent of Georgetown.

(Georgetown University was sued by a homosexual student group under a similar District of Columbia law. Georgetown lost on appeal, and had to give the homosexual group $700,000, annual funding, and equal access to the campus. The first homosexual dance has already been held at Georgetown. The District of Columbia law, like the Baltimore law, has a religious exemption. The courts have been interpreting such exemptions very narrowly to exclude religious schools.)

Prior to the Archbishop's letter, the Catholic Review had carried June 2, 19C8 one article opposing the bill on the grounds it would attract AIDS, patients to Maryland. The Catholic Review on the week before the hearings carried an article in favor of the bill by Fr. Paul Thomas, archivist for the Archdiocese. Thomas has been associated with AGLC (Archdiocesan Gay Lesbian Outreach) which published a pamphlet that claimed Jesus and John this Apostle had a "homoerotic" relationship. Later, Thomas published an article that claimed St. Aelred was a saintly homosexual who understood the need for physical expression of love among the homosexual monks in his monastery. Thomas was the only priest from the Archdiocese who attended the City Council hearings.

Podles noted that the Baltimore City Charter did not allow the homosexual rights law to be taken to referendum. The charter provides for the referendum only for bond issues and charter amendments. Various legal measures are being considered, including a taxpayers' suit on the grounds the law undermines the sodomy statutes.

Podles said that the opponents of the homosexual rights law had to learn to play the political game, and not expect leadership or decisive action from the Archdiocese. He commented that the bill had been carefully timed. The councilmen do not face re-election for three years, and they are hoping their constituents will forget their vote on this issue. Podles noted that three councilmen were vulnerable because they represent heavily Jewish and Catholic areas.

Learn more about Leon Podles.