Missoula anti-discrimination ordinance could be under fire in Helena

Missoula completed today interviews for Ward 2 candidates, and if you want to listen to the exchanges yourself, check out the audio link here.

Both the candidates Roy Houseman supports interviewed today. Cynthia Wolken, one of them, also forwarded an email about a possible move in Helena to “invalidate” the anti-discrimination ordinance Missoula adopted.

Wolken is chairwoman of the Montana Human Rights Network board of directors and executive board member of the Missoula County Democrats. She forwarded this note:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Cynthia Wolken <cynthia.wolken@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:10 PM
Subject: Legislative attack on Missoula’s anti-discrimination ordinance
To: mso-dems-e-board@googlegroups.com


Rep. Kristen Hansen (R-Havre) has been working with Dallas Erickson on a bill that would prohibit – and invalidate – local anti-discrimination ordinances in Montana.  Because this bill is still in the drafting process, there is no substantive language yet (I’ve spoken to the drafter, who provided me with general information).  Obviously, there are more questions than answers at this point regarding the substance, breadth, and legality of the bill.  It doesn’t look like we will get draft language in the next week, which means any hearing is pretty far out.  At this point, we just need to alert folks to its existence – I will continue monitoring it and pass along information as it comes.  If you are tracking it in LAWS, draft information can be found here:


Jason – since this will restrict all counties from similar ordinances, I would strongly urge the County Chairs to put this on their conference call agenda.  Missoula’s lobbyist should also be on top of this.  I will be working with ally groups such as the ACLU, MHRN, and Dem. Women’s Caucus on this legislation.

Please let me know if you have any questions.


Cynthia L. Wolken, Esq.

This bill could be great for whatever bus companies run from Missoula to Helena. I imagine quite a crowd would show up at the Capitol for any hearings.

— Keila Szpaller

23 thoughts on “Missoula anti-discrimination ordinance could be under fire in Helena

  1. Forget the buses! There’s plenty of us here in Helena to take on Dallas and some dude from Havre.

    Dallas: “Let’s change the Montana Human Rights Act to ALLOW discrimination.”

    Dude from Havre: “Hey, great idea! I’m in the legislature and took an oath to uphold the Constitution – surely that doesn’t include equal protection for the gays.”

    All I have to say is, “Bring it on. We’re ready for you.”

  2. And the Mountain Lion Bus to the Parks and Recreation office to protest the nonsensical cutting of old growth Norway maples which clean our air of interstate CO2? Ms. Rye has been astonishingly silent on this topic. Methaphysics seem to attract much more fervor than cardiopulimary facts.

  3. “Cautious,” I appreciate comments to Red Tape. In the future, I’d ask that you please use your real first and last name. I haven’t laid out a policy, but this simple rule of engagement will be better for Red Tape in the long run. Thank you!

    — Keila

  4. It sounds like Keila and others are proud of the fact that Missoula voters never got an opportunity to say whether they wanted the discrimination law. Because of corruption in the City Attorneys officer and the county offices and a corrupt judge there is a law in place that the people did not get to vote on and every effort was made to make sure there was no vote. Some may not be aware that most if not all of the gay agendas that have passed in the good old USA were not passed by the people but by the tyranny of the courts and the legal system. That system is alive and well in Missoula.

    I wish the gays would accept the fact that homosexuals can get out of that lifestyle as hundreds of thousands have proven. Their claim that people were “born that way” is causing extreme suicides in the homosexual community.

    Keila is a wonderful lobbyist but makes a poor reporter if “fair and balanced” is important to the newspaper.

  5. Spoiler alert! Suicide occurs because people haven’t normalized being LGBTIQ – so technically, you’re part of that problem not the solution.

    Also, “the gays” only have “the gay agenda” to live full, free, open lives where they can be who they are without negative impacts to them or whom they love and love whom they choose. There’s noting devastating, corrupt, or tyrannical about that, Mr. Erickson.

    Further, you have no rational basis for getting a legislator to do your dirty work for you. LGBTIQ rights do not negatively affect anyone. They only positively affect people who are LGBTIQ and people who are bullied for being “the gay” but aren’t. The ordinance from Missoula protects all people not just LGBTIQ people. That’s worth repeating: The anti-discrimination ordinance protects ALL people not just LGBTIQ people.

  6. Ryan, you lie or purposely mislead. I don’t find fat, skinny, tall, short people on there. I don’t find foster children or foster parents or homeless or rich or poor people or hundreds of other categories on there. The fact is that those on the list seek “special” treatment and other than those who take a religious position, guaranteed by the Constitution I may add, the LGBTIQ people chose to be on there. Their position is fluid. They can be gay one day but decide they are not later. The others on the list can’t do that.

    The tyranny I spoke of was by the courts, not the homosexuals, unless the court people are homosexual and in some cases that is true and thrust their beliefs on the rest of us whether we like it or not. Voting is good. At least that is what I learned in school. They may not teach that anymore, or maybe on gay issues voting is not good.

    The gays and the gay support media doesn’t even want there to be a discussion about the hundreds of thousands that have come out of the homosexual lifestyle. We don’t want anyone to speak the truth that has stood the test of millennia of time.

    Societies that have embraced sexual sin didn’t last very long throughout history.

  7. Thanks for visiting for the story, Dallas. I told you I’d fire back at your remarks here: I’m making an educated guess when I mention busloads of people descending on Helena. You were at the hearing in Missoula, too, and it was packed. Some of your folks turned out, but hordes of folks who support the ordinance were there. It’s not a stretch to figure lots of Missoulians will roll to the Capitol if there’s hearings.
    And that’s an interesting phrase, “tyranny of the courts.” In general and unrelated to any specific issue, I understand one job of the courts is to protect folks from the “tyranny of the majority.” Maybe there’s a move to take back the phrase. Anyway, on the courts, I’m reminded of this awesome profile of Judge Molloy: http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_b95776dc-c379-11df-9e78-001cc4c03286.html.
    — Keila

  8. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billpdf/LC1828.pdf

    Support the above bill.

    Dallas: I’m not a liar. Fat, skinny, tall, short don’t need to be on the list as they aren’t a lower-classed citizen in reference to the majority. Discrimination, racism, sexism, etc. is based on power not height and weight or whatever other characteristic not related to power relations. Protection/anti-discrimination provides for equal treatment not special treatment.

    People don’t choose to be gay one day and then not the next day. That’s completely irrational. Sexuality is a central, beautiful, and agreed fluid thing reaching into a person’s core. You make it sound like some whimsical party game. “Tag! You’re a fag!”

    Sin? Ha! There it is! The “holier than thou attitude” judgment that underlies your thinking. Take that show somewhere else. I reject your religious beliefs on face.

  9. Remember, unless you are perfect Ryan, we are all sinners. But we should not endorse sin in the law. Adulterers, fornicators, those who abuse animals and many others are not on that list.

    I personally know several people who thought they were gay at one time and realized they were not later.

    Keila, I will let others decide if Malloy was a good judge but the judge in this case was working with those who did not want a vote of the people. No question about it.

    Are you saying that the courts have a responsibility to protect child molesters, for example, from the will of the majority? In a Democratic Republic the majority rules and that is what has happened in this state for centuries on the homosexual issue.

    It is interesting that Ms Obama can want to get rid of “fat” people because it is unhealthy but it is wrong to warn people about homosexuality and the diseases it causes and the decades it takes off of practising homosexual’s lives. The resulting disease from such unhealthy activity is ignored by the media and the public. It seems only smart to discourage our youth from going into a lifestyle that will cause an early death. But we would rather ignore that fact.

    The evidence is very clear about the tyranny of the courts on this issue. Not one state has endorsed gay marriage, for example. It has been forced on them by the courts. Most of the headway in the gay agenda has been because a court forced the issue on the people without a vote. Where a vote was allowed the gay agenda has been struck down. The Court here did not want a petition and sided with the City Attorney who purposely put a stop to it.

  10. Don’t associate me with people who abuse animals. That’s totally irrational. Adulterers are protected and punished under the law – it’s called divorce. Fornicators is just a fancy word for people who have sex outside of marriage. Clearly, they need no protection… well, condoms and all – just not legal protection.

    Further, “sin” is an idea I don’t share with you. I think the secular idea of “crime” makes sense, but not “sin.” So save your typing fingers on making those points to me. I spent 10 years in Christian schools and don’t need lessons about sin, stories from the bible, what would jesus do, or how to find god in all things. Thanks, but no thanks. I respectably disagree with your belief system.

    I also know several people who thought they were gay at one time and realized they were not later – without “therapy” or “de-fagging.” I am not one of those people, but I respect them and their ability to come to terms with themselves their own way. Anyhow, the “ex-gays argument” doesn’t warrant discrimination against “the gays.” Thanks, come again.

  11. “it is wrong to warn people about homosexuality and the diseases it causes and the decades it takes off of practising homosexual’s lives. The resulting disease from such unhealthy activity is ignored by the media and the public. It seems only smart to discourage our youth from going into a lifestyle that will cause an early death. But we would rather ignore that fact.”

    Woah. Rewind. What disease does homosexuality CAUSE? Any disease I can get YOU can get too, Dallas – gay, straight, or other (other is my new favorite demographic category btw). You are highly, and scarily mis-“informed.”

  12. I feel confusion at the arguments of Mr. Erickon. First: the system of government that we set up passed laws by using their legal rights to make decisions rather than have a public vote and that was somehow wrong? We do not live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. We vote for representatives who then set up government systems and pass laws. The system was intentionally set up so as not to allow a full majority rule. The representatives have time (and presumably knowledge) that we do not have to understand the impact of the laws they pass. They are supposed to pass laws without our vote, and, no, they are not supposed to do what the majority wants all the time, because the majority is often very ill-informed.
    Second; what is the point of the people who were gay but decided not to be argument? Is this somehow an argument that homosexuality is wrong? How? I know a number of people who used to proscribe to the drinking of milk lifestyle and now do not. They were able to change their natural ways by choice. Does that mean that those of us who still drink milk are sinners? Or is there some actual point that I am missing in this argument?

  13. Ryan, there are a miriad of deseases that gays get because of the way they have sex that others don’t have to worry about. The lie that heterosexuals spread AIDs at the rate that homosexuals do is bunk. Check the facts. The spread of AIDS was caused by unclean sex in places that breed diseases. There is a lack of warning about that because we don’t want to offend anyone. We tell them to use condoms which have almost a 30% failure rate.

  14. Check the facts, you say?

    Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.(1,2)

    1. UNAIDS. Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic: December 2000.

    2. UNAIDS. Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic: June 2000.

    From: National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease

  15. Oh dear my and yes………….the first name last name code has brought the level of debate up to quite a high standard here. lol

  16. Being gay causes HIV, huh? The irrational has clearly overtaken all sense of reason for you. Peace out. Hope you enjoy losing your cause… again.

  17. MM: When there is indication that those representing us don’t vote the will of the people then the people should have recourse and have the right to vote. You sound like you think our Founding Fathers were tyrants who wanted to force the people to do something they didn’t want to do. That is not the case. That is one reason the MT constitution gives people the right to petition to get a vote. Your statement that the majority is often ill informed comes directly from the Liberal text book. Our Founders did not believe that in the least. The point about people chosing not to be gay is to prove that people are NOT born homosexual. All the evidence indicates it is a choice. So should we encourage people to make a choice that is unhealthy and unproductive and goes against nature? That is what we are doing and the media plays a major part in not allowing one side to be heard.

    AC: Your facts are world wide statistics that mean nothing. In many of the 3rd world countries the men have sex with men and then have sex with their wives and so even though AIDs was passed in heterosexual coupling the AIDS came from people who were involved in sticking things where they were never intended to be because that area is filthy and rampant with all kinds of germs and disease. The fact is, lest you forget, AIDs killed millions of homosexuals. It has killed very few heterosexual (in comparison) couples and none that have not had sex in a homosexual manner or had sex with someone who had sex with someone else in a homosexual manner. You picked up on the lies the homosexuals are passing around. HIV AIDs is a gay disease at it’s core with many heterosexual victims collaterally.

    RM: I did not say being gay causes AIDS. I said HIV AIDS is a gay disease as explained above. Do your research. It is not only AIDs but several diseases that are aquired through anal intercourse. That only makes sense because that is not the way we were intended to have sex and that organ is not clean, is it?

  18. DE: I do not know where to begin.

    Let’s start with your last post: “Your statement that the majority is often ill informed comes directly from the Liberal text book. Our Founders did not believe that in the least.” Actually, they overwhelmingly did. Originally, only white male landowners were allowed to vote, and even then, the state legislatures elected members of the Senate. (Look it up, dude.) How can this be a show of faith that the majority of the population were informed? Try looking up Alexander Hamilton, “The Federalist Papers,” or, really, ANYTHING at all about the writing of Ye Olde Constitution.

    Here’s a start: “Electoral college… is a salient manifestation of the Founding Fathers’ mistrust of the majority principle, a principle that is the fundamental dimension of a true democracy. Their misgivings, in fact, fears of the majority can be plainly seen in the Federalist papers. As brilliantly exposed by the leading political scientist Robert Dal of Yale, the Founding Fathers were not seeking a “democracy;” rather, their objective was to create a ‘republic” (see his early work “A Preface to Democracy” and the recent “How Democratic is the US Constitution?”) Of course, over time, the Framers’ 18th century anti-democratism had to loosen up a little i.e., direct election of Senators, and so on. But what underlies the ideology of these revered Framers and their sacred document, the Constitution, is an utter fear from the populace and the common man.”

    A “gay disease”: technically, this would be a disease that only affects persons who are gay, due to biological differences between “gay” and “not gay” people. According to you, “being gay” is a “choice,” and there is no biological difference between “gay” and “not gay.” By this argument, there can be no such thing as a “gay disease” because “the gays” are just like everyone else. SO, which is it? Because if being gay is not a choice, then your entire argument that they cannot be discriminated against is moot. But if it isn’t a choice, then there’s no such thing as a “gay disease.” Which of these points will you give up?

  19. I just want to point out, maybe because it’s so shocking, that, in fact, the person propagating these totally non-scientific ideas (“AIDS is a gay disease” and “AIDs killed millions of homosexuals. It has killed very few heterosexual (in comparison) couples and none that have not had sex in a homosexual manner or had sex with someone who had sex with someone else in a homosexual manner”) that this person is, in fact, *working* with an elected official, Rep. Kristen Hansen (R-Havre).

    Take note, Rep. Hansen: this person’s stated views and opinions will be all over your reelection campaign. (Which, given your district, may be a positive thing for you.) But there is no way on God’s green Earth you will be able to escape being tarred with the same brush as your “consultant.”

  20. There is a legitimate discussion to be had on the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws in the state and nation.

    Some will argue that the only way to provide solvency for discrimination is statutory protection- others may submit that social problems should be tackled socially before drafting legislation.

    Whether you support the social solution or the state road, I don’t feel that one’s stance ought to change just because it’s the LGBTIQ in the picture. This might be where some of us differ on opinion.

    Racial discrimination laws cover everyone, not just minorities. Unless I misunderstand, these ordinances cover everyone as well, regardless of orientation.

    I’m a “closet libertarian”, so you can guess where I personally stand on the issue. That said I don’t see the relevance of “debating” the origins of HIV, how clean a colon is or where we’re intended to have sex.

    That said, I’ve seen some pretty scary vaginas.. And as for “intended to have sex”- even us straight blokes won’t object to the occasional blowy, yeah? 😉

    That’s all I have to say. Enjoy your discussion.

  21. Pingback: Tweets that mention Missoula anti-discrimination ordinance could be under fire in Helena « Missoula Red Tape -- Topsy.com

Comments are closed.