Gay-Friendly Gainesville

(YouTube video not working -- go here.)

Gainesville has protected the rights of LGBT individuals in an overwhelming 58-42 victory. The fight was particularly nasty, producing the video above in the link above insinuating that protecting the 100 or so transgender residents of the city would lead to men following little girls into bathrooms? Absurdity and transphobia -- real advanced, folks.

The final count: 11,717 to 8,375. That's a pretty sweeping victory.

But Gay.com has an interesting take on the win:

Surrounded by notoriously conservative northern Florida, should Gainesville now be considered a "gay-friendly" city -- or was it simply the high turn out of liberal-minded University of Florida students who were responsible for swinging the vote more toward equality?

My take? Simple: we didn't really talk about this one much, did we? Even I only posted once on the situation and then only because it looked like Cincinnati, in a way. Have we already moved so far past Prop8, have we already had the necessary country-community-catharsis that we aren't going to fight with each other? Or, are we now so insularized by 1,000,000 little fights that we don't have the time to fight for these little places.

I mean, we should win this kind of battle, even in Gainesville. Hell, we should win this kind of fight in Birmingham (AL) and 96 (SC -- and yes, there is a city in SC called 96).

But we kinda let this one slide, didn't we?

Gainesville (FL) Goes Through Article XII

From Pam's House Blend...

Gainesville, FL is getting a brand spanking new law to fight. Guess what it reads?

Amendment to City Charter Prohibiting the City from Providing Certain Civil Rights

Shall the City Charter Be Amended to prohibit the adoption or enforcement of ordinances, regulations, rules, or policies that provide protected status, preferences, or discrimination claims based on classification, characteristics, or orientations not recognized by the Florida Civil Rights Act. The act recognizes, race, color, creed, religion, gender, national origin, age, handicap, marital and familial status. Additionally, this amendment voids existing ordinances concerning sexual orientation, gender identity, and other ordinances inconsistent with this amendment.

The reason this caught my eye? Because Cincinnati fought this off -- and won -- in 2004. In fact, it looks suspiciously like the old law in Cin-Town. Which law? Famous Article XII:

“The City of Cincinnati …may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct, or relationship constitutes, entitles or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment.”

It didn't take the commentators long -- the first comment, actually -- to make the connection. And, of course, there's always Romer v. Evans, but does it apply, this time? But, apparently, that only applies to states, even though the SCOTUS tried to send the message to Cinci that this applies here, too.

But, we'll see.