Housing Committee
Federal Committee

Feb. 4, 2010

This material is for discussion purposes only and has not been approved by the Housing Committee, Federal Committee, Executive Committee or the Board of Directors.

Issue:
Should C.A.R., in conjunction with NAR, “OPPOSE” discrimination based on sexual orientation for equal housing opportunity?

Action:
Optional

Options:
1. Oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation for equal housing opportunity.
2. Oppose the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected category for equal housing opportunity.
3. Take a “Watch” position
4. Take no action

Background:
Nationally, equal opportunity is protected on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, disability, family status and national origin. Twenty states (including California) and numerous local laws across the country prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In other states there are no such laws and it is not illegal to discriminate in the provision of housing and real estate services based on sexual orientation.

Status/Outlook:
HUD has announced its intention to issue rules prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in federally funded housing. No legislation is currently being considered at the federal level.

Support:
Supporters of this believe that discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation is not only wrong, but rises to the level of other protected classes, such as race, gender and religion. In addition, since fair housing practices are already the norm and California’s Unruh law outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation, adding sexual orientation to the list of protections would require little change in business practices.

Opposition
Opponents may feel this is a state’s rights issue and is better left to be handled at the state level and not by the Feds. Other opponents may have a personal bias towards homosexuals or simply believe it is a lifestyle choice and therefore should not be a protected class.

C.A.R. Policy:
C.A.R. did not take a position on this issue when California’s Unruh (Civil Rights Act) law was amended to include sexual orientation as a protected class.

NAR Policy:
At NAR San Diego Business Meetings, the NAR BOD voted:

“That existing NAR policy on equal housing opportunity be amended to include opposition to discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Should C.A.R., in conjunction with NAR, “OPPOSE” discrimination based on sexual orientation for equal housing opportunity?