Members of the Irvine City Council have announced plans to remove a decades old anti-LGBTQ ordinance that denies anti-discrimination protection based on sexual orientation.

In a blog post, Irvine City Council member Melissa Fox wrote to shed light on the city’s ordinance found in the municipal code under, “City Policies On Sexual Orientation.” The ordinance reads, “the City Council shall not enact any City policy, law or ordinance that:

1. Defines sexual orientation as a fundamental human right.
2. Uses sexual orientation, in whole or in part, as the basis for determining an unlawful discriminatory practice and/or establishes a penalty or civil remedy for such practice.
3. Provides preferential treatment or affirmative action for any person on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

Fox, who announced her campaign for the California State Assembly in January 2019, also announced she will make a motion to remove the ordinance, and will be joined by Council member Farrah Khan during the July 14 City Council meeting. 

The ordinance, Sec. 3-5-503, was made into law as part of Measure N, a ballot measure in November 1989, which was approved by voters, 53 percent to 47 percent.

Origins of Ordinance

How the policy was implemented launched a national human rights discussion, and sparked a battle between two local Irvine groups at the time. 

The two groups involved were The Irvine Human Rights Committee and the Irvine Values Coalition.

Then, the Irvine Values Coalition was headed by Mike Lennon, who is the late husband of the current mayor of Irvine, Christina Shea.  

In 1988, the Irvine Human Rights Committee presented an ordinance that protected individuals based on their sexual orientation to the City Council.

In June 1988 the Los Angeles Times reported that the Irvine City Council unanimously approved the Irvine Human Rights ordinance, which prevented discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, martial status or disability.

However, Lennon formed the Irvine Values Coalition challenging the law. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Lennon suggested that with the Irvine Human Rights ordinance, organizations like the Boy Scouts of America would be prohibited from turning down homosexual applicants.

Irvine’s Measure N is technically nullified as a result of the June 15 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, making it illegal for employers to fire employees based on their sexual orientation. Nonetheless, Councilwoman Fox plans on pressing forward. 

In an interview with Irvine Weekly, Councilwoman Fox called Measure N a “terrible part” of Irvine’s history, and suggested that the latest U.S. Supreme Court ruling is a barometer for the relevancy of her motion.

“The recent Supreme Court case is another indication that the time has come to repeal and remove this cruel and unconstitutional ordinance, which singles out a particular minority group and declares them ineligible for legal protection from discrimination,” explained Fox. 

Fox said she been aware of Measure N for many years, but says she “was appalled” to learn of the anti-LGTBQ ordinance in the municipal code, after she started receiving emails from residents asking it be removed. 

“The best part is that the community is activated and paying attention to local government, and that makes it easier to make great things happen,” she explained. “And that was the beginning of bringing this agenda item, it was at the request of hundreds of emails asking us to do so.” 

Measure N More Than 20 Years Later

Irvine Mayor Christina Shea spoke with Irvine Weekly regarding this ordinance, and shared her thoughts on why she felt Councilwoman Fox was bringing this into public forum. 

Said added that she thinks society has gone through massive changes in the three decades since Measure N was implemented, and that the law has been nullified for years. 

“We could put it on the ballot and ask people to nullify it. But there’s just no point to doing that —  because it’s already dead on arrival,” Mayor Shea explained. “I’m sure in most states there’s laws that were enacted years and years ago, that through societal changes and societal legislation overtime have changed, that have just nullified — and they generally don’t come back to be voted on.” 

Shea said she estimates the motivation behind the motion is political, considering her previous connection with pro-Measure N groups in the 1980s, paired with the fact that both her council members are running for offices in November. 

Councilwoman Fox is running for the California Assembly, and Councilwoman Khan is running for mayor of Irvine. 

“The issue is she’s [Fox] running for state Assembly. Over the last two months she’s been trying to use $5 million to give UCI students free rent, which is outrageous, but she’s using her City Council position to create a platform for her state Assembly race,” Shea said to Irvine Weekly. 

“They want to make this an issue, but it’s a non-issue. I stand behind the state Supreme Court. I will be preparing a resolution if need be. As an elected official, I follow the law. And the state law has been very firm since the ‘90s that this previous law has been overturned.”

Advertising disclosure: We may receive compensation for some of the links in our stories. Thank you for supporting Irvine Weekly and our advertisers.