|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
October 28, 2001Proposal 1 stirs emotion, unrest, conviction in TC- Proposition can be seen in various contexts, including religious, legal, socialBy BILL O'BRIENRecord-Eagle staff writer TRAVERSE CITY - Smoke billows through a downtown tobacco shop as the patrons offer opposing views on the city's Proposal 1 - an appropriate venue for such a discussion given the clouded nature of the debate. "I don't like it. I don't like it one bit," says shop owner Mike Nolan. "I believe in anti-discrimination laws, and this proposal negates those laws. I don't want to negate those laws." Another customer sees things differently. He does not support "special rights" for gay and lesbian people and does not believe the city should either. The brief exchange offers insight into the divergent and often emotional views that swirl around Proposal 1, a controversial ballot question that if approved by voters would prohibit any city body from adopting policies or ordinances that would include gay, lesbian and bisexual people among those granted protection by the city from discrimination. While there is little consensus on the long-term ramifications of Proposal 1 if passed, one result of the proposition is clear: Its approval would have a chilling effect on the advancement of gay rights issues in the city. Its approval would prevent the city from considering a human rights or anti-discrimination ordinance that includes reference to sexual orientation, and it could decide whether city employees would be eligible for domestic partner health care benefits. Concern about such gay rights advocacy is the driving force behind Proposal 1 supporters. "We see the handwriting on the wall with the city commission," said Fred Weber, chairman of the Traverse City Citizens Voting Yes for Equal Rights Not Special Rights, which organized the Proposal 1 petition drive. "If this doesn't pass, it won't be long before we see the next step in the process (toward a city ordinance with gay rights). ... This isn't just going to sit, in my opinion." To others, Proposal 1 is viewed as a deceitful message that gay and lesbian people are not wanted in Traverse City. "They're trying to pit gays against Christians, they try to pit gays against blacks, they try to pit gays against straight people," said Sean Kosofsky of the Triangle Foundation, a gay and lesbian advocacy organization based in Detroit that is assisting local opponents of Proposal 1. "I call it the four Ds - they divide, deceive, distract and demonize," he said. While opponents of Proposal 1 agree that its approval would be a deterrent toward the city taking up issues involving gay rights, they say the proposition cuts much deeper than that. They see it as a sanction for people in the city to discriminate against gays and lesbians - a practice the city would be powerless to prevent. "That's what this is really all about," says Bonnie Deigh, a married schoolteacher who is co-chairwoman of the Traverse City Campaign Against Discrimination. "They want to make sure that it remains OK to discriminate against gay people." The genesis of Proposal 1 traces back to the mid-90s when a group of residents began to monitor the city commission's periodic discussions on gay rights issues. After the city commission passed a non-discrimination resolution in February of 2000 that included a reference to sexual orientation, Traverse City Citizens Voting Yes for Equal Rights Not Special Rights was formed. The group twice brought Proposal 1 to the city commission before its language was approved for the ballot earlier this year. The city has become embroiled in other gay rights debates besides its involvement in anti-discrimination policies. Late last year a citywide controversy erupted over a bumper sticker created by the city's Human Rights Commission. It was meant to promote diversity, but its rainbow design was quickly criticized by people who equated it with the internationally recognized gay rights flag. The city commission later pulled the bumper stickers from city-owned vehicles because of the uproar. Proposal 1 proponents believe the city has been far too occupied with gay rights issues in recent years at the expense of other critical issues. "This will put it to bed," Weber says. "The best thing that can happen is to limit city government from having to do with anything involving sexual orientation. ... If it isn't passed, then I think we're going to see real changes take place in the city." Proposal 1 opponents say they are not trying to advance any type of agenda in the city. "It's their initiative. They're the ones who started all this," says Paul Heaton, co-chairman of the Traverse City Campaign Against Discrimination. "Gay people are the ones who are under attack." Proposal 1 opponents say its backers have an anti-gay vision for the city. Opponents are particularly galled by the message that Proposal 1 would prevent the city from offering "special rights" to gay and lesbian people. "It's about the 'special right' to do what? To keep your job or not get thrown out of your apartment?" Deigh says. "An anti-discrimination ordinance does not give the people it protects anything. It allows them to keep their job. It allows them to live where they want to." Though proponents believe such an anti-discrimination ordinance could lead to "expensive lawsuits" against the city, the city's attorney says that is unlikely. W. Peter Doren says he doubts the approval of Proposal 1 would provide the city with any legal protection from lawsuits on gay rights issues. He sees the proposal as a largely "symbolic" proposition. "I don't think there is much you can do with the city charter to protect the city from lawsuits," Doren says. "I don't see anything in Proposal 1 that affords the city any protection from liability." The difficult social and moral questions raised by Proposal 1 are evident through some of the reaction from clergy on the issue. On Monday morning, the Traverse City Campaign Against Discrimination will hold a news conference where the leaders of several churches will endorse a "no" vote on the proposal. In other congregations, church leaders have given a cautious endorsement of the proposal while emphasizing that gays and lesbians are still welcome in their places of worship. "Homosexuality in scripture is portrayed as being both immoral and unnatural," said the Rev. Phil Noordmans of the Faith Reformed Church in Traverse City. "That registers pretty clearly in my own mind as a biblically legitimate position." Still, the Rev. Noordmans knows that it's a difficult religious issue for many. "For many people it's not just an intellectual or 'out there' issue. For many people it's impact on their family, so it's more a personal issue to them," he says. "I would not want to be portrayed as someone who would look at someone who is engaged in that lifestyle and say 'you're not welcome here.' " Other religious leaders will not take a position on Proposal 1 before their congregations. They are unsure the ballot box is the best way to address homosexuality. The Rev. James Gardiner, pastor of St. Francis catholic parish in Traverse City, the largest parish in the Diocese of Gaylord, says he believes the two basic issues surrounding Proposal 1 are homosexuality and discrimination. He says that while the Catholic Church does not condone homosexuality, it also teaches that gay and lesbian persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity" and that they should not be discriminated against. "A common opinion of experts is that there are multiple factors - genetic, hormonal, psychological - that may give rise to it," he says. "Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose." Proposal 1 supporters believe a person's religious views on homosexuality are a central part of the debate. "You have to go back and ask the question: Is it one of discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals, or is it one of openness and accommodation of people's religious beliefs?" Weber says. "Proposal 1 doesn't give license to do anything. It guarantees that (the city) will stay the way it is." Opponents say the religious argument is just another attempt to mislead those voting on Proposal 1. "We're not asking anyone to change their religious views," Heaton says. "What they're trying to do is to have their religious views changed into public policy." |
|
