Covington's proposed new ordinance to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination is long on good intentions but short on uniting us.

Gays and lesbians in Covington or elsewhere should enjoy the same rights as any of us, but Covington residents and commissioners ought to reexamine whether multiplying new protected groups in a 20-page human rights ordinance is the smart way to go. A public hearing is scheduled this evening at 6:30 p.m. at Latonia Elementary School in the run-up to a Covington Commission vote in April.

Besides the usual "race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin," the proposed ordinance would prohibit discriminatory practices on the basis of "sexual orientation, gender identity, familial status, marital and/or parental status." It also adds disability, place of birth and age (over 40). What group will be asking to be protected next?

The Enquirer has called for opening up the debate on repealing Cincinnati's Article 12 of the city's charter which expressly prohibits any law that would give "minority or protected status" to gays, lesbians or bisexuals. Some understandably found Cincinnati's pointed exclusion of gays offensive, and the city may have lost conventions and other visitors because of it. But even if Cincinnati chooses to repeal Article 12 (Issue 3), it does not necessarily follow that "sexual orientation" ought to be added to Cincinnati's protected list.

But that is exactly what the gay-lesbian Northern Kentucky Fairness Alliance is pushing in Covington. The ordinance would impose civil penalties from $100 to $500. It expands protected coverage to housing and public accommodations. Exemptions include religious institutions and owner-occupied two-family rentals. No one should suffer discrimination in housing or employment, but the proposed language is so broad that any disgruntled worker or tenant could use it to file a complaint.

We need to reexamine if the decades-long race to establish protected group rights has divided us, pitted group against group and eroded individual rights. Due process and other rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shouldn't depend on belonging to some enumerated group. Covington should simplify its human rights law for one and all instead of multiplying protected groups.