I won't be surprised if the Fayetteville gay rights ordinance passes on Sept. 8. That's with or without the boost the measure will get from the state law banning such ordinances.
If that sounded absurd, welcome to Fayetteville. The fastest way -- sometimes the only way -- to arrive at a consensus in this town is for somebody outside of it to tell us we can't do that.
The state Legislature passed a law earlier this year. It says: "A county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law."
This broadside ban was clearly aimed right at Fayetteville. The town's City Council passed such an anti-discrimination ordinance in September of last year to protect gays. Voters repealed that ordinance in a special election vote in December. To some unknown degree, the repeal happened because that ordinance was very badly written. Would-be supporters balked at wide-open language subject to misinterpretation.
Ordinance foes realized the measure's defeat might have depended as much on the ordinance's flaws as the principle involved. So the Legislature tried to pre-empt a second, better try. Sure enough, what opponents and their lawmaker allies foresaw happened. Ordinance supporters came back with a proposal that's better -- a whole lot better in a lot of different ways.
But if this ordinance passes, what difference will it make in light of the new state law? Is this election just a protest vote? No. This vote matters. Whatever side you're on, you'd better turn out for this one.
Did you think five years ago gay marriage was going to be legal soon in this state? Attitudes change, and where the public goes, the law will follow. Any vote expresses the will of the people who voted. If the ordinance wins, it will declare Fayetteville to be a place where discrimination based on sexual orientation is not tolerated by your friends and neighbors. Most people don't need a law to adhere to what their community thinks law-abiding people should do, even in Fayetteville.
I mentioned the new proposal is well written. It is, and not just by correcting flaws in the last one. The new version also looks for flaws in the new state ban. That ban says new ordinances can only be based in what's already "contained in state law." Such a basis, however tenuous, is what the new ordinance clearly seeks out.
The new proposal doesn't ignore the wall in front of it. It seeks crannies, and flowers can grow in crannied walls.
I'm not especially thrilled at the idea of my city getting involved in an issue that will almost definitely wind up in court. But the city should be a whole lot more comfortable going to court with this proposal than it would have been with the last one.
As mentioned, I'm expecting a backlash from the new state law that passed. After all, that law started as a backlash to Fayetteville's ordinance. Time for another volley. With every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. In Fayetteville, there might be two or three.
When that state law passed, a ripple went through Fayetteville. From the ivory towers of the university to the offices of businesses, the lounges of hippies and the porches of rednecks, the same thought stirred within minds throughout this town: "Oh, you think you're going to tell us what to do?" Not exactly those words, perhaps. Probably shorter. Two words, I'm thinking. The second is "you."
We can barely tell ourselves what to do in Fayetteville. The one thing we all agree on's that we don't like outsiders telling us what to do. That's just one reason this ordinance's supporters are mighty right to tell the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign thanks but no thanks for their involvement this time. The D.C. group wrote much of the first ordinance and targeted this town from the outside. That outside support helped get the first ordinance repealed.
This election is our election, and it's on the merits. Unfortunately for the opponents, the merits for the proposal are a whole lot better than last time. We'll see if that's enough.
Doug Thompson is a political reporter and columnist for the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at [email protected].
Commentary on 08/29/2015