Conservatives cry foul over Fort Worth policy proposals that are gay-friendly

By MIKE LEE

mikelee@star-telegram.com

FORT WORTH — Conservative groups are rallying against proposals aimed at making Fort Worth government policies more inclusive of the gay community.

The proposals include extending domestic-partner benefits to gay couples, considering a company’s record on gay and lesbian issues when approving tax breaks, and including gender reassignment surgery in the city health insurance plan. City employees would also receive training on dealing with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

The recommendations came from a task force appointed after the inspection and arrests at the Rainbow Lounge, a gay bar.

Many of those provisions are already in place in other cities and in major corporations. Dallas, Austin and El Paso offer health insurance to domestic partners, as do 59 percent of Fortune 500 companies, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Tarrant County cities such as Arlington, North Richland Hills and Grapevine do not.

A posting on the Tarrant County Republican Party Web site questioned whether the domestic-partner provision is legal in Texas. The site urged people to attend Tuesday’s City Council meeting, when members are scheduled to vote on the first of the proposals.

The council is scheduled to vote on expanding the anti-discrimination ordinance to prohibit bias against people based on gender expression. City officials have said more study is needed before the council can vote on adding domestic-partner benefits or changing the health insurance plan.

Tarrant County Republican Party Chairwoman Stephanie Klick questioned the cost of some of the proposals, particularly in light of Fort Worth’s budget problems.

"Private businesses can do what they want to do, but we’re talking about taxpayer dollars being used for this purpose," she said.

Kelly Shackelford, an attorney for the Liberty Legal Foundation, pointed out that a 2005 amendment to the state constitution defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" and bars governments from creating "any legal status similar or identical to marriage."

The amendment and a similar state law were intended to prevent Texas from recognizing civil unions for gays. The city could run afoul of those laws if it tries to give gay partners more benefits than it gives straight but unmarried couples, he said.

"If they’re saying everyone who’s an employee can get health insurance, that doesn’t affect this," Shackelford said. "The key is going to be how they’re defining it: What is this class of people and is it a counterfeit marriage?"

Jon Nelson, a spokesman for Fairness Fort Worth, called those arguments "scare tactics."

"What Ms. Klick conveniently leaves out is the tremendous economic benefit these proposals potentially bring to the city," he said. "The LGBT community spends $63 billion on travel each year. We no longer choose destinations simply because there is a 'gay’ section of town but decide based on the attractions and whether the city is 'gay-friendly.’ "

Estrus Tucker, a minister who chairs the city’s Human Rights Commission, supports all the proposals.

"What better way to ensure that Fort Worth remains an open and inclusive community . . . than to prohibit discrimination based on transgender, gender identity or gender expression?" Tucker said. "It’s the right thing to do."

Correspondent Kimmy Daycock contributed to this report.

MIKE LEE, 817-390-7539

Looking for comments?