Lawmakers fail LGBT in Michigan

It's a conundrum: Same-sex couples can now get married in Michigan, but only at the risk that prospective employers or landlords will punish them for exercising that hard-won right — or even for acknowledging an attraction to others of the same sex.

The state's ban on same-sex unions may be history, but the Michigan civil rights statute that bars employment and housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status or marital status affords no protection for those targeted for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Michigan's constitution is even stingier, decreeing only that the state will not tolerate discriminatory treatment on the basis of "religion, race, color or national origin."

Numerous polls indicate overwhelming bipartisan support for extending civil rights protection to members of the LGBT community. Most of the state's largest employers also have expressed support, recognizing that Michigan's reluctance to outlaw discrimination against gays handicaps their efforts to recruit the most talented employees.

But Republican state legislators have repeatedly sabotaged attempts to add protection for LGBT citizens to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The most recent attempt was scuttled last December after opponents balked at protection for transgender people and exempt those who cite religious reasons for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

The depth of the frustration felt by gay citizens and employers alike now has manifested itself in a proposal to put a constitutional amendment barring discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual preference or gender identity on the November 2016 ballot.

Spearheaded by Detroit attorney Dana Nessel and Lansing attorney Richard McLellan, Fair Michigan's ballot proposal has garnered the tentative support of elected leaders including Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney Kym Worthy and Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Paterson, and employers appear to have promised financial backing.

Initial polling suggests that only a deep-pocketed disinformation campaign could endanger passage of the proposed amendment.

Opponents have argued — disingenuously and erroneously — that extending civil rights to gays would force religious groups and individuals to violate their own beliefs. So we are likely to see 30-second spots alleging that the proposed amendment would require Catholic priests and Orthodox rabbis to renounce their vows or face civil penalties.

But the ease with which 22 states (plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) have recognized LGBT rights without infringing on anyone's religious liberty gives the lie to such baseless claims, and we anticipate that in the end facts and experience will trump demagoguery.

It is sad that sponsors of the proposed constitutional amendment have had to look beyond their elected representatives in Lansing for validation of its simple thesis that every Michigander deserves to be treated fairly. But the vestigial forces of bigotry have forced this showdown, and there is little reason to doubt that, in the end, those who champion fairness and dignity for all will prevail.

The Detroit Free Press. Nov. 4, 2015
The Gayly - 11/9/2015 @ 1:25 p.m.