No ‘Fairness Amendment’ To End LGBT Discrimination In Lincoln, Nebraska

NebraskaAfter a hard fought battle to pass non-discrimination ordinance for LGBT people, lawmakers in Lincoln, Nebraska, are pulling the issue off the table.

An ordinance had support in the city council, which passed it last May, and Mayor Chris Beutler backed it, but opponents gathered enough signatures to force a ballot vote and officials simply don't think the timing is right for a city-wide vote.

"November just didn't feel like a good time to offer it," Carl Eskridge, a City Councilman who sponsored the ordinance, told The Journal Star. "I just don't know when it will happen. It could be a year or two [before reintroduction]."

Eskridge and his allies say they are going to spend the immediate future working on educating voters about non-discrimination laws.


  1. Javier says

    Smart move. It is premature for voters to decide this issue in Nebraska. It would not end well for us. Also, the transgender issue is a non-starter outside of the most liberal areas of the country. We need to be wiser about attaching the transgender issue to LGB legislation in the heartland and south. It is just not gonna fly. Additionally, the Chick-Fil-A controversy is making it even harder for gay rights to progress in the Heartland, South, and Midwest. It is gonna be very hard to advance gay rights in the 29 states without gay rights laws in this environment. The anti-gay side has made a lot of progress advancing the notion that gay rights endanger religious and free speech rights, and it will be hard to shake that growing perception after the CFA mess.

  2. Bill says

    Haterosexuals don’t want gay people on an equal playing field with them. Don’t believe the lies that it’s just marriage that haterosexuals want gay people away from.

  3. DB says

    Support for banning employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is now around 85%. This should be easily pass even in Lincoln. However, one huge tactical error was made by the bill’s sponsors – they included the irrelevant, extraneous, and controversial category gender identity in the bill. We should always pass laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation first and never attempt to add on gender identity. As a gay civil rights movement, we need to say ‘no’ to any non-discrimination bill that includes gender identity. It is acceptable to include other demographic characteristics such as age, race, sex, marital status, or disability status IF they are more popular/ less controversial than sexual orientation.

  4. mike8787 says

    The people advocating for non-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances should be ashamed. The transgender community is a completely unrepresented and voiceless group in our political sphere. Throwing them under the bus for our potential gain is not the answer, and almost certainly relegates this community to decades and decades of non-protected status. Furthermore, suggesting that any transgender inclusive ordinance or law is wrong shows that you don’t understand what the LGBT community is fighting for.

    We’re not just fighting for protections against sexual orientation discrimination. We’re fighting for equal and just treatment of all people. Making a civil rights effort about “Me” rather than “The Greater Community” is antithetical to the very idea of civil rights.