Versagi Voice readers have reached out with questions like the following.
You refer to your 10-year-old "exploring" of the pros and cons toward the human rights ordinance. People who think like me admit that your past coverage of both sides was fair, but we also remain sure that you are one of those who think that "gay rights" would me a more accurate name for the attempt and you recommended a vote against the ordinance. Your side won.
Don't wait for the city attorney to come up with draft language and for the coming debate to begin before you comment this time. What do you say to the fact that 95% of the people at Public Comment want an ordinance? What about the fact that attitudes have changed since that first time? Don't just sit there. Say something.
Humph. It's a bit early, but here are the bullet points which we should be exploring.
- Gays and lesbians, not left-handed Lithuanians, are the driving force seeking an ordinance.
- Just as there are gays and lesbians who hesitate to come out even in the current increasingly permissive environment, there are people who fear being labeled haters or bigots when they question the need for or wisdom of a human rights ordinance.
- I still see no need for "protection" in Royal Oak. Alleged anecdotes are not evidence to the contrary.
- Local, county, and national (but not state) attitudes seem to have become more liberal. Worldwide, gay marriage is finding acceptance.
- The city and the county seem to have shifted from Republican to Democratic.
- So why adopt it at The Table? In this favorable environment why don't our commissioners feel confident enough to let the voters have another crack at it?
Frank Versagi is the editor of Versagi Voice.