Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > September > 23 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Gay rights vote foretells more about Lehner than Blair
When state Rep. Terry Blair, R-Washington Twp., voted for what was commonly known as a gay rights bill last week, a lot of people were surprised. He says in a letter on the page opposite this one that they shouldn’t have been. But, after all, no exceptions had arisen before to his identity as a conservative.
And the word does have a certain meaning. A time will (and should) come soon when conservative politicians are generally on board for basic gay rights. (This legislation was about equality in housing and jobs.) Already many conservative politicians and thinkers believe their movement should downplay the issue, rather than be seen as looking for a fight.
But when it actually came to a vote in the Ohio House, only five Republicans favored the bill, with 39 against.
Blair’s vote raised an immediate question in some minds: Has he had some experience that causes him to see gay rights differently than other conservatives? Does he have a gay friend or loved one?
That, after all, seemed to be the explanation when then-Vice President Dick Cheney broke with other conservatives and supported even gay marriage. Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian.
No, says Blair. Nothing like that. He just consulted his conscience (and his priest).
OK. So are there other surprises in store? Does he tilt to the liberal side on other social issues? Answer: He couldn’t think of any. Certainly not abortion. Not gay marriage. No.
One might note, however, that he isn’t an opponent of gambling, which some might want to count. In fact, he owns race horses. (He recused himself from a vote on the state budget because he felt the slot-machines-at-racetracks issue cut too close to home.)
The south suburbs of Dayton supplied another of the Republican renegades on gay rights: Rep. Peggy Lehner, Kettering. That, too, must have surprised people: those who assume she’s a staunch conservative because of her past as an anti-abortion activist. She’s been president of Ohio Right-to-Life. It’s a commitment of long standing.
But the vote actually gave her a chance to underline — and perhaps finally get across — a point she’s been trying to make for some time: That she’s really not the hard-charging conservative ideologue some might assume. She has presented herself as relatively moderate and pragmatic and eager to work across the political aisle. In 2004, she lost a fairly close election for the Montgomery County Commission.
If 5,000 of the 135,000 people who voted for her opponent, Debbie Lieberman, had voted the other way, she’d have won.
Observers had to wonder if her reputation on abortion had hurt her. After all, being against abortion presumably didn’t get her any votes beyond those which any Republican would be expected to get.
(On the other hand, her activism might have caused some people to contribute money to her. She outraised Lieberman 2-1.)
Meanwhile, for some Lieberman voters, abortion might have been a symbol.
Until the 1990s or so, the local Republican Party had a moderate wing. Support for abortion rights was the hottest issue identifying the moderates. Such regular election winners as Chuck Horn (a county commissioner and state senator) and Vicki Pegg (county commissioner and recorder) were members of that wing.
By this decade, that wing was routed within the party. Well, maybe some old Horn and Pegg people — nursing a little grudge — went for the Democrat in 2004.
Lehner has always seemed to be saying that Horn and Pegg supporters might be surprised how much they had in common with her, if they could get past abortion.
Since arriving in Columbus last year, she hasn’t exactly been a rebel. But the best bet is the gay rights vote says more about her general posture than about Blair, another first-termer.
Both Blair and Lehner report that the reactions they’ve received to their votes have been muted and have leaned a bit toward the positive. Maybe that’s the biggest news here: that the issue isn’t generating much heat.
Permalink | Comments (11) | Post your comment | Categories: Civil Rights, Columns, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics
Comments
By Bob540
September 23, 2009 12:58 PM | Link to this
If I were a State rep., I might support such a bill too. But first, I’d want to know if such a law is really needed : Do homosexuals REALLY suffer discrimination in housing and in the workplace? As homosexuals are prominent in the much-coveted “creative class” that is deemed essential to save our city, wouldn’t they be coveted at high levels as neighbors and as business partners? Seems like they wouldn’t be part of any underclass.By Steve Moulton
September 23, 2009 4:26 PM | Link to this
Yes, the GLBT community suffers discrimination - sometimes on a wholesale basis. The House committee heard at least one story; most of the Fortune 500 companies in this state have such non-discrimination policies; as to 11 of our 13 state-supporte institutions of higher learning. Even the Ohio House of Representatives have an equivalent non-discrimination policy. If there was no discrimination, these groups would not have enacted such policies. The GLBT community should be much coveted as neighbors and business partners just as should all of our straight neighbors and business partners. That seems to be the whole point: without equal protection in Ohio, those GLBT coveted neighbors and business partners will go elsewhere and we won’t have them at all. Our GLBT brothers and sisters have been, and still are, clearly a subclass in our American society in most areas. It’s clearly time to level the field for all people as seems to be the intent of the U.S. Constitution. Let’s hope the Ohio Senate can see it the same way.By Steve Moulton
September 23, 2009 4:27 PM | Link to this
Yes, the GLBT community suffers discrimination - sometimes on a wholesale basis. The House committee heard at least one story; most of the Fortune 500 companies in this state have such non-discrimination policies; as to 11 of our 13 state-supporte institutions of higher learning. Even the Ohio House of Representatives have an equivalent non-discrimination policy. If there was no discrimination, these groups would not have enacted such policies. The GLBT community should be much coveted as neighbors and business partners just as should all of our straight neighbors and business partners. That seems to be the whole point: without equal protection in Ohio, those GLBT coveted neighbors and business partners will go elsewhere and we won’t have them at all. Our GLBT brothers and sisters have been, and still are, clearly a subclass in our American society in most areas. It’s clearly time to level the field for all people as seems to be the intent of the U.S. Constitution. Let’s hope the Ohio Senate can see it the same way.By Nick Staup
September 23, 2009 10:54 PM | Link to this
And Ohio will keep losing those who believe freedom and equality go hand in hand to the New England states over the next few years. Until gay families are recognized here as real families the brain drain will continue. This is all nice but too little too late to keep the creative class from going.By we got fooled
September 24, 2009 7:51 AM | Link to this
The irritating part of this story is the premise put forth by the clearly prejudiced Gottlieb: That most Rebublicans are narrow-minded homophobes. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know both Lehner and Blair and know that they are both common sense conservatives that represent the opinions of a majority of Ohioans. For liberals to portray Rebublicans as homophobes is irresponsible, inaccurate and does our community a huge disservice.By Bob540
September 24, 2009 8:18 AM | Link to this
First, companies having such policies is NOT proof of discrimination. Companies are often pro-active in seeking to avoid potential lawsuits, or in the positive PR they anticipate from such policies. Second, where is the proof of underclass status, when gays as a group have more education and higher incomes than the general population? Doesn’t an underclass do less well? Third, the “brain drain” from Ohio to other regions includes non-gays as well, and simply demonstrates the preference of educated young people to live in larger cities, preferably coastal and/or with more temporate climates. With or without gay rights legislation, that will continue. Laws should be based on real need, not “feels good”.By Bob540
September 24, 2009 8:27 AM | Link to this
As I mentioned elsewhere, I think we should not have a preference for people who desire just one partner. I think plural partnerships would be best for individuals and society. Until our laws and companies recognize multiple-partner unions, and not discriminate against them, should I call people who disagree with me “haters.” Do I label them “pluraphobes”? Or do I just except that people have different opinions on things, that those opinions are represented in our laws and policies, and that people don’t have to hate others to hold disparate opinions? I think the latter.By aharddaysnight
September 25, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this
Actually Bob there is a movement among people who believe in polyamory and plural marriage. But one question I always raise is how can we expect one state to recognize gay and lesbian rights when our own military refuses to do so?By Stephen
September 29, 2009 4:17 PM | Link to this
A recent study found that 51% of gay, lesbian and transgendered people hide who they are at work due to fear: Fear of losing a promotion, losing connections, or fear for their public safety. This is a problem. Big Bravo to Dayton area reps who tackled this issue and did their jobs.By Bob540
September 30, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this
Stephen: Who did that study? How was the question phrased? I’m sure most people hide something from their employer (if even just an opinion) that they fear might not be received well. I work with people who are open about their homosexuality, and no one hassles them. One guy carries a purse and gets along fine. More details please!By Bob540
September 30, 2009 12:53 PM | Link to this
Another question: What is up with people who complain that they cannot be openly gay in their church? What does worship have to do with sexuality? I’m not there to hook up or engage in PDA. Few ministers today even preach against homosexuality anymore. If one dresses and behaves appropriately, I doubt the other parishioners are going to care who you prefer to sleep with. They really don’t want to know.