Anti-Discrimination Ordinance of 2003
Most people would agree with this sentiment, and rightly so. Codifying it into law sounds like a no-brainer.
For Peoria’s LGBTQ+ community, that was not always the case.
Sure, there was no law on the books that said discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was actually allowed, but there was not anything explicitly saying people were not allowed to do it either. That vagueness prevented any kind of legal recourse by the LGBTQ+ community.
What if an employer found out you were a regular at one of the gay bars and fired you? Oh well.
What if you were evicted from your apartment because of your same-sex partner? Out of luck.
The list goes on.
Something needed to be done. Legislation had been attempted at the state level, but gridlock in the General Assembly kept efforts stalled. If something was to be done, it was up to the cities.
Discussions began in 2002 to add sexual orientation to Peoria’s anti-discrimination ordinance. If passed, the local LGBTQ+ community would finally have the same legal protections against discrimination based on race, gender, age, and religion in public places, workplaces, and housing.
However, this was easier said than done. Some on the city council seemed skeptical. Had people come forward saying they had been discriminated against? Was this a matter so simple that it did not really need to be said? Did the U.S. Constitution already protect everyone anyway? Clearly, a lot of work would need to be done.
The case was formally made in January 2003 to the Fair Employment and Housing Commission to expand the local ordinance to include sexual orientation as a protected class. Among those who presented was Douglas Drenchpohl, president of the Men’s Network, a local support group. ''Equality is important,'' he said. ''Treating everybody the same is important. Gays feel like if people find out that they're gay, especially people in the teaching profession, that they would be terminated from their jobs.'' Also presenting was Carole Hoke, a social worker and activist. She added, ''My prayer is we begin somewhere as responsible citizens to say, 'Discrimination doesn't play in Peoria.'' Ultimately, a narrow majority of the Commission agreed with the presenters and recommended the changes to the City Council.
Support for the measure was not guaranteed. The vote was not to be held until April and public opinion on the topic raged in the editorial section of the Journal-Star for months. Some letters echoed the same doubts expressed by a few of the councilmen the previous year, while others justified their opposition with biblical quotations. Other letters poured in defending the measure as the right and humane thing to do, while others also justified their support of the measure with biblical quotations.
Finally, on April 22, it came time for the vote.
People packed into the council chambers that evening. In fact, there were so many people there that an overflow room had to be opened up. Finally, at 6:18 p.m., proceedings got underway. Roll call, invocation, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of minutes - for many, the opening formalities seem to go on and on. Until finally, item 03-218 came up on the agenda - Adding sexual orientation as a protected class.
A few last-minute letters of support and one of opposition had arrived were distributed to the council members. Then, the motion was made to vote on adopting the amendment to chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Peoria. The motion was seconded and the floor opened for public debate.
Several spoke in favor of the change, including Carole Hoke, Douglas Dranpole, Rev. Anna Saxon of the Westminster Presbyterian Church, and Rev. James Polk of the Central Illinois Interfaith Alliance. ''It's important that we as a community show fairness and understanding for all if we want to progress,'' Rev. Polk said. ''We all are God's children - all of us. He didn't make me any better than anybody else.''
While many were there that night in support of the measure, there were more than a few against it too. Several community members voiced their opposition to the proposal. One such person represented the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, a conservative organization that thought the ordinance’s passage would condone immorality and “a certain chosen lifestyle.”
After the public forum concluded, the City Council took some time to digest what they had just heard, asked a few questions, and discussed matters among themselves before it was time to vote. Council members Jim Ardis and Patrick Nichting pondered the constitutionality of the proposal. Wasn’t this decision too big for a city or county to decide? Constitutionally, could they even do it? Having come to the meeting prepared to vote against the measure, it now looked as if Councilman Clyde Gulley Jr. might switch sides. ''A 'yes' vote tonight means I don't agree with people being discriminated against. That's it…it doesn't mean I agree with homosexuality. I don't,'' he said.
Then, it came time to vote. The room held its breath as the roll call was taken.
Jim Ardis - no
Chuck Grayeb - yes
Clyde Gully Jr. - yes
John Morris - no
Patrick Nichting - no
Mayor Dave Ransburg - yes
Gary Sandberg - yes
Bill Spears - yes
Marcella Teplitz - yes
Gale Thetford - yes
Eric Turner - yes
With an 8-3 vote, the measure passed. On that night, Peoria joined the ranks of Springfield, Bloomington, Decatur, Normal, Champaign, Urbana, and Chicago, who already had adopted similar measures.
Everyone knew there was still more work remaining. The road to justice is long, but on that April night, the final destination got a little bit closer.
