On Nov. 8, Maine voters will be asked to overturn an amendment to the Maine Human Rights Act that extends civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. The amendment has already been passed by the Maine Legislature last March with support from both Republicans and Democrats and was signed into law by the governor.

Despite this broad support, opponents have put the question on the ballot this November. Now it will be up to the voters to decide if civil rights protections should be provided to victims of harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

One consistent argument that opponents raise is that the change in the law isn’t necessary. Opponents will tell you that they haven’t ever engaged in this type of discrimination; they haven’t seen others discriminating in the workplace; and that they don’t personally know anyone who has experienced such discrimination. Why fix what ain’t broke?

Sadly, discrimination is alive and well in Maine and there’s no better illustration of that, as well as the lack of protection against it, than the case of Bob Higgins.

Higgins is a homosexual who worked on the production line at New Balance’s factory in Norridgewock from 1986 until 1995. But unlike other employees at New Balance, Higgins claimed he had to sit by while his co-workers “called him vulgar and derogatory names, made obscene remarks about his imagined sexual activities and mocked him (e.g., by using high-pitched voices or by gesturing in stereotypically feminine ways).”

Other co-workers told him they did not want him near them because they didn’t like his “kind” or because they feared that he would supposedly give them AIDS. Higgins got squirted with condiments, had rubber bands snapped on him and even had hot cement poured on him. If that wasn’t enough, one co-worker grabbed him from behind in the bathroom and shook him violently; the same coworker even threatened to kill him.

So, what did Higgins do about it? According to Higgins he did just what he was supposed to do: He complained repeatedly to his supervisor about what was going on. Higgins claimed his supervisor did nothing. If that wasn’t bad enough, one of Higgins’ harshest tormenters eventually became his supervisor.

But Higgins gutted it out, day in and day out, until he had the audacity of committing the purported offense of refusing to answer a question posed by one of his harassers. He was fired, allegedly for “insubordination.” Enough was enough and Higgins filed suit.

So now this is the part of the story where we expect to read that because we live in America, Higgins got his day in court and got to ask a jury to decide what happened and, if he proved his case, what his damages were. But Higgins never got there.

Instead, his case was dismissed without a trial because even though, as none other the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston noted, “the record makes manifest that Mr. Higgins toiled in a wretchedly hostile environment,” there was no law that protected him from having to be subjected to regular, routine and horrific harassment all because he was gay.

Higgins’ case is far from isolated. The Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence has recently published the results of an extensive study of discrimination based on sexual orien-tation in Maine. This 33-page report, which can be viewed at http://www.preventinghate.org, details 63 disturbing incidents of discrimination and concludes that discrimination based on sexual orientation, particularly in employment,

is a serious problem in Maine.

By passing the law protecting homosexuals from discrimination, the Legislature and the governor have seen fit to change that. On Nov. 8 every one of you will get to vote on whether that law should be given effect. The law provides homosexuals with the same protection that every Mainer has right now not to be discriminated against because of religion, race, color, ancestry, disability, age, gender and familial status.

Who among us would not be outraged if Higgins suffered all the same indignities because he was Christian? Imagine if Higgins had been mocked, ridiculed, harassed or threatened with death because he was Christian. Should the legal protections extended to him be any less because he is homosexual? There is no good reason why this simple, yet powerful, legal protection should not apply to homosexuals.

As Higgins’ case so grimly illustrates, the reality is that if the referendum passes on Nov. 8 then it will continue to be perfectly legal under the Maine Human Rights Act for an employer to harass an employee because she or he is gay; for a landlord to evict a tenant because she or he is gay; for a school to suspend a student who is gay; or for a restaurant to refuse to serve a patron because she or he is gay. And that’s just not fair.

While we pride ourselves in Maine as thoughtful, tolerant people, the sad reality is that discrimination has and does occur. Just ask Bob Higgins. Or better yet, tell him you don’t think that is “the way life should be” by voting no on Nov. 8.

Kristin L. Aiello is a lawyer and serves as a commissioner on the Maine Human Rights Commission, the state agency that administers the Maine Human Rights Act.