Public Discourse Shown At Its Best
The man was so frightened, the words froze in his throat. As he swallowed back tears, it was impossible to tell if he was for or against the ordinance in front of the Spokane City Council on Monday night.
The audience in the council chambers fell into uncomfortable silence. Then Mayor John Talbott, speaking with a gentle voice, reassured the man that they understood the gist of his message. The discomfort disappeared.
It was just one moment of grace in a meeting filled with it. On Monday, 48 people from the community spoke for and against a controversial human rights ordinance. Broadcast on cable TV Channel 5, it was riveting and poignant. The tape should be shown throughout the country as an example of civic process at its best.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin and familial status. The speakers disagreed most strongly on the protection it would grant gay and lesbian citizens in employment, housing and public accommodations.
In the end, a vote was postponed for 60 days to redraft the ordinance for much-needed clarity. Two weeks ago when the ordinance was first discussed, comments turned vicious. The council obviously did not want a repeat. It enforced good guidelines. It kept to strict time limits for the speakers and asked for no public reaction to remarks made. The guidelines forced those on opposite sides to really listen to one another, instead of just react.
Most spoke from their hearts. A gay man told the council that his partner, children and employer urged him not to speak out for the ordinance. But his conscience did not allow him to stay home.
A disabled man said he had fought hard all his life for rights and didn’t feel that “equating a lifestyle choice” to his disability was fair.
It was refreshing to see new faces at the meeting, women and men stepping out of anonymity to stand up for what they believe. Council members, too, spoke candidly. Roberta Greene described her own experiences with discrimination and then explained why she couldn’t vote for the ordinance as written now. She prefaced her decision by saying: “I cannot be the judge if (homosexuality) is choice or innate behavior. I’m leaving that to God.”
Cherie Rodgers, drawing from her own Native American background, then eloquently explained why she could vote for the ordinance now. “This is not a hard decision for me,” she said. “Not even close.”
The discussion ended, but the standard for civil, public discourse was set Monday night. Here’s the hope it remains.