Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

Wednesday, March 09, 1994     Page: 3A QUICK WORDS: COUNCIL MAY PASS GAY
ISSUE

Council may pass gay issue to voters
   
Council already has approved the first of two required readings to amend
city’s human relations ordinance to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation
    By P. DOUGLAS FILAROSKI
   
Times Leader Staff Writer
   
WILKES-BARRE — After voting unanimously to put the issue of gay rights on
its own table, the City Council now is considering taking it off and passing
it to voters via a referendum.
   
The council discussed the issue Tuesday in executive session prior to a
work session at City Hall, and council chairman Phil Latinski said he would
support putting the issue before voters.
   
“As far as I’m concerned if that’s what people want, that’s what I’ll do,”
Latinski said. He also said he could not speak for the rest of the
seven-member council, but added, “I support a referendum.”
   
Council member Thomas McGroarty said he had not yet decided which route
would be best for the proposed legislation. Other members, including Al Boris,
left the meeting and could not be reached immediately.
   
Boris’ remark at a Dec. 22 meeting that some gays “should be shot” and that
gays with AIDS “are getting what they deserve” first sparked a call for his
resignation, then for local civil rights protection.
   
At its Feb. 10 meeting, the council unanimously approved the first of two
required readings to amend the city’s human relations ordinance to prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
   
Proponents and opponents of such legislation agreed that if the council
passes the issue to voters it would be abandoning its responsibilities.
   
“As leaders of the city, I think they should vote on it … These are tough
questions but they should deal with them,” said Glenn Yanik, a member of
Committee for Responsible Citizens, a group formed about two weeks ago to
fight the proposed ordinance change.
   
Lonny McLaughlin, a local resident who has been outspoken in support of the
proposal, said the council would be acting “discriminatorily.”
   
“Why have they not done that the last three times they amended the
ordinance — if not to avoid voting on this?” said McLaughlin, referring to
earlier changes to the ordinance.
   
At the same February meeting, the council also gave preliminary approval to
a local hate crimes ordinance and voted that night to support a similar
proposal in the state legislature.
   
If the council were to decide to place the issue on an election ballot as a
referendum, it would probably do so by passing an ordinance in time for the
general election in November, Latinski said.
   
The deadline to place a referendum on the ballot with the county is August.
   
There is a primary election in May, but legal work necessary to prepare the
question for the ballot probably could not be done in that time, said City
Clerk Bill Brace.
   
Since February’s council vote, City Attorney Bill Finnegan has been
studying gay-rights legislation existing in other communities across the
United States to refine the final proposal that is to go before the council.
   
The hate crimes portion of the council package may be difficult to pass
legally because of its similarity with the proposed state law, Finnegan said.