Cincinnati council votes to extend gay, transgender protection

The Cincinnati city council voted Wednesday to extend discrimination protections to gay and transgender people, the first step the city has taken to provide such protection since voters repealed a ban on gay rights laws. That ban, which was repealed in 2004 after being in force for more than a decade, had eliminated protection for gay people in the city's human rights ordinance. It was the only such prohibition in the nation.

On an 8–1 vote, the council amended the city's human rights ordinance to extend protection against discrimination to gay and transgender people in jobs and housing. The ordinance currently protects people from discrimination based on race, gender, age, color, religion, disability status, marital status, or ethnic, national, or Appalachian regional origin. The change, effective next month, adds "sexual orientation or transgendered status" to those protected categories.

"It's very important for us to say, whoever wants to come to Cincinnati, we'll treat you fairly and justly and welcome your contributions," said Councilman David Crowley, a sponsor of the ordinance.

Councilman Chris Monzel cast the lone "no" vote. He said that was because of his separate proposal to rewrite the human rights ordinance to ban discrimination against any individual. "What I'm trying to do is cover everyone," he said after the council meeting.

Representatives of Equality Cincinnati said they didn't expect Monzel to vote for the measure. "I wish Mr. Monzel had seen the importance of unifying the city and the council on this vote," said Scott Ditto, Equality Cincinnati board member and cochairman of the Human Rights Campaign of Greater Cincinnati. "This is something that is extremely important for Cincinnati, and the councilman is certainly playing to his very ultraconservative base."

Monzel said his proposal, which he plans to present at the council's next law committee meeting, is intended to provide equality for all citizens and stop dividing people into classes. "This is not meant to be some type of cover," he said. "I want true equality for all citizens."

Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz had said during the council meeting that, from a legal standpoint, the ordinance has to enumerate the classes it aims to protect in order to be effective.

Despite the council's approval of the amendment, the issue may not be settled. The chairman of Equal Rights, Not Special Rights, the group that led the successful push for the 1993 ban on gay rights laws, said the ordinance is a stepping stone to trying to get approval of same-sex marriage.

"We have a city that is spinning out of control with crime and other problems, and this council wants to pass laws banning hypothetical situations," said Phil Burress, who is also the leader of the Citizens for Community Values, which worked for the state's 2004 ban on same-sex marriage. "There are no cases of this type of discrimination, so why pass a law based on sexual orientation?"

Burress said his group is considering its options, including gathering the necessary signatures—about 7,000—to place the issue on the November ballot. (AP)