County residents, outsiders, debate gay rights

Sharpened talons came out last night in the form of witty quips, pulpit rhetoric and impassioned… Sharpened talons came out last night in the form of witty quips, pulpit rhetoric and impassioned confessions as citizens of Allegheny County and neighboring counties debated a controversial ordinance in front of County Council. About 150 people came to protest or support part of a new bill that protects individuals of all sexual orientations and gender identities from discrimination in housing and employment in Allegheny County. The battle lines were drawn as droves of supporters of Allegheny County councilwoman Amanda Green’s bill and those opposing the bill sat divided in the grand hall. Although no decision would come of the night’s forum, those in attendance and the 85 people who signed up to speak still aimed to make their point. ‘This is a struggle against the modern day Anita Bryants of the world,’ said Bruce Kraus, an openly gay member of the City Council, pleading for the bill to get approved. His face grew flushed and his robust voice began to shake as he read an excerpt detailing the murder of San Francisco public official and gay rights activist, Harvey Milk. ‘We are your sons, your daughters, mothers, fathers and yes, elected officials.’ Suzanne Broughton, president of League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh, called the county councilmen to action by challenging their courage to stand up for people’s rights. She also challenged the opposing side’s religious argument, saying that Jesus worked with sinners and preached love and justice. Each person who supported the bill stepped to the podium and gave personal, political and social reasons why the bill should be passed. ‘Twenty other states and other cities in Pennsylvania have adopted this sort of bill,’ said Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill. ‘It is our duty to protect civil rights.’ Michelle Feingold, of Temple Sinai, reflected on similar bills from the past and how their outcomes did not have a negative effect on communities or families. ‘No one was treated for PTSD after going to a public rest room,’ said Feingold. Her daughter, Daniela, called discrimination ridiculous. The speakers who opposed the bill also came out in droves. Several attendees said they considered sexual orientation to be a behavior or opinion of sexual preference. The argument from those opposing the ordinance was that sexual orientation is unlike race, nationality or a handicap and therefore should not be considered a protected class. ‘Gays and lesbians can change their orientation at will,’ said Richard Gelfand of Sewickley Lighthouse Baptist Church. ‘You can’t verify their sexual orientation ’cause it’s so fickle.’ Other concerns were that the homosexual agenda was beginning to infringe on the faith of others. Some in attendance argued that landlords and employers who live according to Biblical principles would be forced to adhere to a bill that goes against what they believe is God’s law. The Rev. Paul Voida, of St. Mary Romanian Catholic Church, walked to the podium and raised the book, ‘After the ball.’ He contended that gays will take a cue from the book and begin to act victimized to garner support. Echoing Voida’s concerns, Jim Ludwig, owner of Blumengarten Florist, said the ordinance will create reverse discrimination if it remains. ‘If I have a spare room in my house and want to rent it out, shouldn’t I have the right to decide who I want to rent it out to?’ said Ludwig. ‘I should not feel bad for doing that.’ Peter Harvey, executive director of Fair Housing Partnership, said he has seen the dark side of housing discrimination. He recalled a male couple that was turned away because their sexual orientation. ‘I had to tell them there was nothing we could do,’ said Harvey. ‘Maybe there is something we can do now.’