
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voters repealed a ban on gay rights laws.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which was repealed in 2004 after being in force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)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.