Vigil protests City Council’s failure to pass ordinance
Comments
by Eric Owen on March 12, 2009 at 4:00 am under News
In mourning of an ordinance aiming to extend enforceable legal rights to Flagstaff’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community, a coalition of local residents held a candlelight vigil in Heritage Square on March 6.
On March 2, city council voted six to one against passing an ordinance proposed by the statewide gay rights group Equality Arizona. If passed, it would have added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of personal characteristics protected from discrimination in areas of employment, housing, education and public accommodations.
Vigil attendees signed letters and urged residents attending March’s First Friday Art Walk to sign them as well. These letters urged city council to reconsider their decision and to “promptly begin drafting the necessary legislation to ensure these rights.”
Aaron Levy, an NAU graduate student and English instructor, said the council’s failure to pass the ordinance demonstrated that intolerance remained a critical issue in Flagstaff.
“This (vigil) is a way not only to show support, but also for the opportunity to get together and mourn the fact that hatred can happen in this fair community,” Levy said.
The use of candles and the black clothing worn by the participants gave the vigil the intended funeral quality.
Margo Nelson, a junior sociology and women and gender studies major, and Kelly Aiello, a senior psychology and Spanish major, who attended the event, said this tone represented an appropriate reaction to city council’s decision.
“In a lot of ways, it is a death, and it is something the citizens of Flagstaff should be mourning,” Aiello said.
Though many of the attendees were NAU students, the Flagstaff community as a whole was also significantly represented.
Ruthanne Hassing, a member of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), attended not only the vigil, but the March 2 city council meeting.
She said the efforts of the LGBTQ community conjured memories of the Civil Rights movement. As with that movement, Hassing said it is critical that the discrimination of the LGBTQ community remain prominent in politics and the media.
“This issue needs to remain in front of the public and city council, because there is a danger that it will be swept under the rug,” Hassing said.
Arne Hassing, Ruthanne’s husband and a professor of religion at NAU, said this discrimination must not only continue to be a prominent issue, but that, as such, it should be considered as an issue that is not merely political, but personal.
“The city council and the public need to understand that there’s a human impact to their decision,” Arne said. “Real human beings are affected…They feel the injustice of it deeply.”
The vigil attendees encountered little opposition from the citizens at the art walk, whom they were encouraging to sign the letters.
Lea Ann Rens and Dorrie Haymon, Flagstaff residents who signed copies of the letters, said they had not heard about the ordinance, let alone city council’s decision.
“Flagstaff is a very liberal place, and I’m very surprised they denied (the ordinance),” Rens said.
2 Comments
It is sad that the Flagstaff City Council did not see fit to extend this basic human right to these vital citizens of Arizona. Freedom includes freedom from discrimination. I hope that the next time this comes up, the City Council members see things differently.
How can anybody deny that discrimination exists against people who are gay, lesbian, or transgender? Members of the GBLT communities are common targets of violence and ridicule. They are summarily fired or denied employment because of who they are. Nobody can honestly claim the discrimination does not exist. There are people who dishonestly make this denial, but these are the people who are most committed to making this discrimination, and are most organized in perpetrating it. Just like someone who denies the holocaust, people who deny the discrimination are the worst discriminators of all.
Given that the discrimination is obvious, pervasive, and deeply entrenched, by what justification does a government body not extend its discrimination protections to its most victimized citizens? Do the members of the Flagstaff City Council feel that this discrimination is justified? Is this city being run by the kind of narrow minded bigots who think “those people” deserve whatever mistreatment comes to them? Sexual orientation and gender identity are conditions of birth. This has been demonstrated time and time again. It is not illegal, it harms no one, it is fully within the rights of each individual, and it is beyond their personal choice to have a sexual orientation or gender identity which varies from the main stream. To openly refuse to extend discrimination protection to an obviously discriminated minority is to condone that discrimination. This says horrible things about the members of the Flagstaff City Council.
When a minority group seeks protection from discrimination, it is not a quality of the minority that justifies that protection, but rather a quality of the discrimination. It’s not a question of whether the members of the minority are more or less deserving of protection than anyone else, but rather a question of whether the discrimination is common enough to be an unjust hindrance in people’s lives. Extending discrimination protection should be a judgment on the discrimination, not on the minority. The Flagstaff City Council failed in this basic mission and made their decision based on their personal feelings about the minority, and not based on the obvious common knowledge of the pervasiveness of the discrimination. That makes them parties to the discrimination, and as such, undeserving of seats in leadership in government.