By Cindy Schroeder
The Cincinnati Enquirer

COVINGTON - A proposal to outlaw discrimination here based on sexual orientation triggered phone calls and e-mails to city officials even before it was officially proposed Tuesday night.

"I've gotten a lot of calls from folks on both sides of the issue," Covington City Commissioner Alex Edmondson said before Tuesday's meeting. "It's become a topic of lunch conversation. People are on both sides of the fence, and they're very passionate about what side they're on."

The Rev. Don Smith, chairman of the Covington Human Rights Commission, presented a proposal for an expanded human rights ordinance to Covington City Commission on Tuesday that would, among other things, ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

"What's wrong with the existing ordinance?'' the Rev. Mr. Smith asked. "It simply doesn't go far enough. People are left out. It doesn't offer equal protections under the law to all of Covington's citizens. ... The proposal intends to correct that."

Although there have not been "a substantial number of complaints" made under Covington's 4‡-year-old human rights ordinance, the Rev. Mr. Smith said the expanded protections are important if even one Covington resident has a complaint that can't be addressed under the current ordinance.

No vote was taken Tuesday. Each member of city commission has said he intends to keep an open mind on the proposed changes.

Because of the intense interest in the issue, Mayor Butch Callery has scheduled a public hearing for 6:30 p.m. Feb. 11. As the date nears, city officials may decide to move the meeting from City Hall to a larger meeting place.

"If we get too large a crowd, we might do another hearing so that we can accommodate everyone," Mr. Callery said. "We'll also do two readings of it, and that would give another opportunity for public participation."

Covington's current human rights ordinance bans discrimination in housing, based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, age and national origin.

The proposed ordinance would expand the protected categories to include sexual orientation or gender identity, marital and/or parental status, familial status and place of birth. Unlike the current ordinance, it also would prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and employment and it would carry penalties to give offenders incentive to correct an unfair situation, supporters say.

The proposal exempts churches and religious organizations from the sexual orientation portion.

Mr. Callery asked the Rev. Mr. Smith if he was aware of a similar legislative proposal that was introduced in the Kentucky House on Jan. 7, and sent to the judiciary committee.

"I don't know how it'll go down there (in the Kentucky General Assembly), but I know how I want it to go up here," the Rev. Mr. Smith said.

In recent weeks, the Sharonville-based Citizens for Community Values has sent more than 300 packets to churches, supporters, elected officials and others, asking them to oppose the measure.

"This is not about civil rights,"' said David Miller, vice president of Citizens for Community Values. "It's about special rights. Homosexual advocates are trying to create a new civil-rights class based on private sexual behavior."

Supporters of the measure disagree, saying gays, lesbians and bisexuals are being discriminated against because they have no legal protections. Adopting such protections will send a message to prospective businesses and conventions, as well as the public, that Covington is inclusive, they said.

Last week, the Northern Kentucky Fairness Alliance, which is supporting the expanded human rights ordinance, said a door-to door survey last summer and a telephone survey in September showed nearly 60 percent of registered voters "strongly support" adding sexual orientation and gender identity to Covington's human rights ordinance.

Should Covington officials decide to add anti-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity, they would join Lexington and Fayette County and Louisville and Jefferson County, where similar provisions were added to their human rights ordinances within the past four years.

"I think extending equal rights to all is not special rights," Dean Forster, co-chair of the Northern Kentucky Fairness Alliance, said during a break in the meeting. "The gay community is out there actively reaching out to their fellow citizens asking for the same protections that other people in the city already have."

The 35-year-old Covington man said some people fear that if they come out as a gay person, they may be fired from their job or lose a promotion. They also may lose their apartment if their landlord doesn't agree with their lifestyle, and they feel they can't openly share their lives with their partners.

Clarence Wigglesworth, a 62-year-old Covington resident, said he thinks the proposed ordinance is unnecessary. "There are enough federal, state and local laws on the books," he said.

Across the Ohio River, gay rights advocates say they hope that Covington's efforts will prompt Cincinnati officials to review controversial legislation there.

In 1993, Cincinnati voters repealed an ordinance that provided legal protection for homosexuals by a vote of 62 percent to 38 percent. The city subsequently adopted Article XII, a charter amendment that bars it from providing "preferential treatment" to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

"We will be keeping a very close eye on Covington's situation, not only because we're rooting for them and wishing them well, but because we think (an expanded human-rights ordinance) certainly bodes well for the repeal of Article XII on this side of the river," said Doreen Cudnik, a board member of Stonewall Cincinnati.

E-mail cschroeder@enquirer.com