HOUSTON — A yearlong battle over gay and transgender rights that turned into a costly, ugly war of words between this city's lesbian mayor and social conservatives ended Tuesday as voters repealed an anti-discrimination ordinance that had attracted attention from the White House, sports figures and Hollywood celebrities.
The City Council passed the measure in May, but it was in limbo after opponents succeeded in putting the matter to a referendum vote.
Supporters said the ordinance was similar to those approved in 200 other cities and prohibited bias in housing, employment, city contracting and business services for 15 protected classes, including race, age, sexual orientation and gender identity. Opponents said the measure would allow men claiming to be women to enter women's bathrooms and inflict harm.
"It was about protecting our grandmoms, and our mothers and our wives and our sisters and our daughters and our granddaughters," Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, told cheering opponents who gathered at an election night party at a Houston hotel.
The ordinance's proponents — including Mayor Annise Parker, local and national gay rights and civil rights groups and actress Sally Field — accused opponents of using fearmongering against gay people, and farfetched talk of bathroom attacks, to generate support for a repeal. The ordinance, they noted, says nothing specifically about whether men can use women's restrooms.
Parker had pushed hard for the ordinance and helped it gain endorsements from President Barack Obama and corporate giants like Apple.
Opponents — including Patrick, pastors of conservative megachurches and former Houston Astros baseball star Lance Berkman — said the ordinance had nothing to do with discrimination and was about the mayor's gay agenda being forced on the city.
The issue was one of a handful of high-profile initiatives up for a vote Tuesday. In Ohio, voters rejected a constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana.
Even some longtime marijuana advocates opposed the amendment. The amendment, known as Issue 3, called for giving wealthy investors who had spent about $25 million to bankroll the referendum campaign exclusive rights to grow commercial marijuana initially. Some equated that provision to enshrining a monopoly in the state constitution.