By Charles Sercombe – July 31, 2008

Often in politics people can really tangle up their words.

Sometimes it’s by accident, and sometimes, not so much by accident.

On Wednesday, Councilmember Scott Klein, who is usually an articulate fellow, offered up this doosey of a resolution for members to vote on:

“Do you decline to repeal Ordinance 2008-09?”

Just about everyone in the council chambers scratched their heads over that one. Councilmember Abdul Algazali had to ask twice just what a “yes” vote and a “no” vote would mean.

Even after an explanation was given City Clerk Ed Norris had to ask again for clarification.

So, what was going on here?

First off, the resolution refers to the super controversial “Human Rights” ordinance that a bunch of religious folks are against because it gives anti-discrimination protection to gays, lesbians and transgendered people.

Fr. Andrew Wesley of St. Lad’s Church is telling people the ordinance will allow male transsexuals or males who view themselves as women to use women’s public restrooms. Other people are falsely claiming the law will allow perverts to be perverts.

City Attorney James Allen has stressed that simply isn’t so. This law, he said, does not allow people to break the law, or force the Catholic Church or a mosque to perform gay marriages or even hire gay people.

Religious institutions, he said, are exempt from the law, meaning churches and mosques, if they so wish, can continue to be intolerant of gay people.

Opponents of the ordinance submitted petitions with about 1,000 signatures of voters who want the law to be repealed.

On Wednesday, at 8 a.m., the council took two votes, the one above, and another to create a ballot issue for voters to decide on in the November General Election.

Well, the above resolution caused a lot confusion. It’s one of those double negative wordings that drive people nuts.

Just for the record, a “yes” vote meant you don’t want the ordinance repealed.

A “no” vote meant you did want it repealed.

The vote was split right down the middle – a 3-3 tie, meaning the vote failed and the law was not repealed.

It was moot anyway since the petitions forced the law to be suspended until voters get to vote on it.

The second part of the vote on this issue went unanimously. That vote authorized the ballot language, which means voters will decide in November whether they support a law giving gays and lesbians, as well as a host of other minorities, anti-discrimination protection in housing, employment and in business services.

As for Klein and his double-negative wording, when asked by a Citizen reporter why he presented it that way, he simply shrugged his shoulders and smiled. Keep in mind, Klein spearheaded the adoption of this ordinance and is part of a local group called Hamtramck United, which is promoting the law’s adoption.

If you think that was tricky politics at play, just wait until the coming weeks. We’ve got religious folks on one side of this debate and gay rights activists on the other.

And you’ve also got a faction out there who simply can’t stand Klein and is using this issue to attack him.

Somehow I get the feeling Hamtramck is going to be the loser in this battle.