A proposal before the City Council that would have allowed unmarried couples to register as domestic partners was tabled without discussion Monday night, while a another human rights proposal was kept alive for a vote in two weeks.

The council could have put the proposals on the ballot for a citizen vote in the fall, but instead decided to make the decision - at least on one - themselves.

"We are overjoyed that the council agreed to vote on the first ordinance," said Frank Cikutovich, chairman of the Human Rights Commission. "We think it is a very progressive step for the council."

Cikutovich said the motion to table the more controversial domestic partner proposal wasn't a complete surprise.

"We kind of knew the second proposal would be sent to parliamentary purgatory," said Cikutovich.

Councilman Jeff Colliton made the motion to table the domestic partner issue indefinitely.

The human rights proposal now being considered essentially reinforces city support of federal and state laws preventing discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, marital status, age, sexual orientation or source of income.

It will return to the council next week for a first reading as a proposed ordinance, then will return a week later for final reading, public comment and a council vote.

The domestic partner proposal would have allowed unmarried couples to pay $25 to the city clerk to register their relationship. They could pay a similar fee to cancel the registration.

Some companies offer employee benefits to couples who are registered.

Council members listened to nearly 40 speakers Monday night. Citizens were asked to comment only on the human rights issue, and save their comments on the domestic partner proposal until it came up for discussion. But most speakers commented on both.

Opponents almost unanimously claimed the city was giving special rights to gays and lesbians.

"It is clearly harmful to the individual, to the family and to society," said the Rev. Ron Johnson, executive director of Citizens for Common Sense and senior pastor at Indian Trail Community Church. He turned in a pile of petitions with more than 4,400 signatures against the proposals.

Others said the proposals put small businesses at risk of lawsuits if they fire or fail to hire someone who is gay.

Some opponents described hardship for landlords who don't want to rent housing to gays because of their own moral objections.

Many warned of increased costs to the city and "another layer of bureaucracy."

Supporters argued that the proposal doesn't give any group special rights, only equal treatment.

"Should even a single case of discrimination be allowed? asked John Deen, former publisher of the defunct Stonewall News.

"This is about being free of violence, hatred, bigotry and prejudice," civil rights activist Eileen Thomas told the council. "It is your charge to legislatively protect all people."

Copyright 1998 Cowles Publishing Company
Provided by Stiley and Cikutovich, PLLC.
1408 W. Broadway
Spokane, Wa. , 99201
Office Phone: (509) 323-9000
Fax: (509) 324-9029
www.legaljoint.net