10/29/08 In Our Opinion

Hamtramck’s “Human Rights” ordinance proposal has sure stirred up volumes of discussion, immense numbers of flyers, advertisements, letters to the editor and online comments.

Unfortunately, much of it has been on the hysterical side offered up by opponents.

We won’t be surprised to see this ballot proposal fail as a result of the misleading statements and claims made by opponents, some of whom have an entirely different agenda in mind.

The ordinance has flaws but we still think it is worth supporting.

Opponents of the ballot say this proposal is really about providing “gay rights” and promoting a “gay” lifestyle. Yes, gays are included in a long list of other folks the ordinance is attempting to protect when it comes to housing, employment and dealings with businesses.

The ordinance also includes anti-discrimination protection for the elderly, unmarried couples, the unemployed and many more.

Some opponents insist the ordinance will force churches and mosques to hire gay people. They say it will allow male cross-dressers, or men who view themselves as women, to be able to use women’s public restrooms.

Those are bald-faced lies, but then again, some of these opponents don’t really care about the truth. Those who have organized the opposition come from outside of Hamtramck and have their own anti-gay agendas that they are trying to push.

The folks from the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor and the American Family Association of Michigan, based in Midland, are driving the opposition and whipping up anti-gay sentiment.

They are professional gay haters and are dedicated to spreading their hate wherever progressive-thinking communities attempt to roll out a welcome mat for the gay community.

This law excludes churches and mosques and all other religious institutions from following the anti-discrimination ordinance. So, if your church wishes to maintain its current practices, you still may do so. You are excluded from the ordinance.

We have to wonder what’s going on with these anti-gay groups where they set up Websites and send out their mercenaries to stop people from being gay-friendly. They insist gays are attempting to force their lifestyle – whatever that means – on everyone else.

Don’t they have anything better to do with their time? So what? Someone is gay. Big deal. This is the year 2008, not 1908, we’re over being homophobes.

In fact, wherever gays have chosen to live, their communities end up being immensely improved. Just look at what happened in Royal Oak and Ferndale and the tremendous economic gains made because gays came in, fixed up their houses, established attractive businesses and made the communities better.

The opponents want Hamtramck to be left behind economically, and not have our neighborhoods upgraded.

Look at this proposal, despite its flaws, as an economic tool. By telling the gay community we welcome them, Hamtramck stands to gain.

On a humanitarian level, though, shouldn’t we let the world know Hamtramck doesn’t believe in discrimination? Some have even pointed out that this ordinance is redundant because there are state and federal laws that provide anti-discrimination protection.

That’s true to a point – but there are no state or federal laws providing anti-discrimination rights to gays. And besides, even if there were state and federal laws granting protection, so what? Does it harm Hamtramck to add another layer of protection?

And look at this issue in another way, from an earlier time. Swap out the title “gay” and replace it with “black.”

Wouldn’t it sound outlandish if we were opposed to providing anti-discrimination protection to black people because of their black “lifestyle” and just because they are black?

Maybe “gay rights” is the modern day “civil rights” movement that needs to be settled once and for all.

And consider this too. The proposal is largely symbolic with few enforcement measures.

Opponents have chosen to divide this community with their spread of hate. Don’t let them fool you, this proposal deserves a “Yes” vote.