In front of a crowd filling both council chambers and the City Hall lobby, Kokomo’s Common Council voted Monday to approve legislation that would protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens from various forms of discrimination.
After the 5-4 vote in favor of the ordinance’s first reading, the council will hold a second reading at 6 p.m. March 14 in City Hall. Voting against the ordinance Monday were Democrats Bob Cameron and Mike Wyant, and Republicans Cindy Sanders and Tom Miklik.
Council President Bob Hayes, Vice President Mike Kennedy, and members Steve Whikehart, Donnie Haworth and Janie Young voted in favor.
If approved, the council will amend the city’s human rights municipal code to include LGBT protections, specifically a ban on discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition to supporting LGBT protections, council members voted to bar discrimination related to a person’s marital status, age or veteran status.
Currently, local municipal protections are only given to residents based on race, religion, color, sex, familial status, disability, national origin and ancestry.
In effect, the ordinance would give affected residents protections in the areas of housing, financial institutions, employment, labor organizations, public accommodations and education.
The ordinance will be upheld by the city’s Human Rights Commission, an existing group that will go from 11 to seven members after the council sunsets existing members. Of the seven members, the mayor will appoint four people while the council will appoint the other three. Terms will be staggered with some receiving three-year, two-year or one-year terms.
“I wish it were completely unanimous, but a win is a win,” said Whikehart, who sponsored the ordinance. “I would say there were those of us that made promises in the fall, and the majority of us followed through on those, allowing us to get the 5-4 vote. There is obviously a lot of passion in this issue, which is understandable. But ultimately, at the end of the day, the 5-4 vote passes the ordinance.”
Included in the ordinance are multiple exceptions. Those contain religious protections, a ban on non-married domestic partners receiving employer-provided health care and the exclusion of housing intended for and solely occupied by people over 62 years of age in a complex operated under a federal or state program.
Addressed early in the night was the issue of religious protections, which would exempt from the ordinance any religious society or order, association, organization, institution or business that qualifies as a 501(c) organization, one that is officially associated with a church.
Charles Riley, pastor of Abundant Life Church, expressed his fears that the council would later eliminate the protections, saying “the exemption process cannot hold water.” Riley also noted his worries that the council would change the definition of a church or religious organization.
Others speaking after Riley made note of potential fines of up to $2,000 that could be levied through the ordinance against “any person who engages in an unlawful discriminatory practice.” An existing part of the municipal code, Whikehart explained that a fine is the “last-step, worst case scenario,” and would only be enacted if two sides can’t reach another agreement.
The most controversial, and oft-mentioned, issue of the night, though, had to do with sexual criminals abusing the gender identity protections to enter a restroom or locker room of the opposite sex.
Responding to the worries and concerns of many who commented, Cameron, who spoke in favor of the ordinance during last year’s political debates, said the issue is one that could endanger people and encumber local businesses.
“I can just see a whole problem in here that there are going to be businesses that have to put in another restroom, and what cost are we going to cost businesses?” he asked.
“You got your people that are going to try this. You’re going to have [heterosexual] people try this. … They’re there, and I’m concerned about that,” he added.
Cameron, who noted he has spoken to LGBT community members who claimed they don’t need such protections, also said he thought the council rushed the vote.
Similar to the comments made by many in attendance, Demetrius Warren, a Kokomo resident, spoke about his concerns that pedophiles may use the ordinance to abuse children in public restrooms.
“I have a 14-year-old daughter and if I saw a guy walking into the bathroom after my 14-year-old daughter, I promise you somebody else is walking in there after her after him,” he said. “He’s not going in there with my 14-year-old daughter. I don’t know if he truly believes he is a woman. I wouldn’t know that.
“My job is to make sure that if I see something, and you have the same body parts as me, my assumption is that my daughter is at risk.”
Both Whikehart and Kokomo Mayor Greg Goodnight spoke about the issue, saying other cities have shown the worries are baseless.
“For 10 years, they have had these protections in Indianapolis. I’ve been in restrooms at Victory Field, at the Indiana Convention Center, Whitewater State Park, the Eiteljorg Museum, dozens of restaurants, conference centers throughout Indianapolis, and they’ve had this,” said Goodnight prior to the meeting during the informational session.
“It’s not happening in Indianapolis and if it is, it’s not happening because of these protections. … There are not these phantom restroom issues, and if there are, they are taking place regardless of discrimination [issues],” he added later.
Whikehart echoed many of Goodnight’s sentiments, referencing other cities with similar protections.
“I think that a lot of that is pure rhetoric and is just a smoke screen,” he said. “You can look back at any other city in Indiana, and even across the nation, that has had these ordinances for decades, and they haven’t had these issues. It’s not all of a sudden going to pop up in Kokomo.
“If somebody does go into a bathroom and do something illegal, there is follow through with that. There is due diligence with that and charges that follow with that.”