City Council Will Not Put Non-Discrimination Clause On May Ballot

City of El Paso voters may soon have a second opportunity to decide if gay and unwed partners of city employees should receive health insurance.

The City Council, in the Fall of 2009, extended health coverage for domestic partners of city employees. When local religious group, El Paso for Traditional Family Values (EPFTFV), found out about the city’s decision, they petitioned to bring the issue to the voters last November. Voters passed EPFTFV’s ordinance which asked them to endorse ‘traditional family values’ by extending health benefits only to city employees, their legal spouses and dependent children.

Some city officials, like Representative Susie Byrd, believe that the 11-thousand people who went to the polls, but did not vote on the ordinance – probably skipped it out of confusion. That’s why she wants voters to have a second chance – but with clear, direct language.

Because of the ordinance’s vague language, and the city attorney’s interpretation of it, hundreds of unintended people are also slated to lose their health insurance, if it’s ever enacted. The unintended, affected group, according to city officials, include retirees who qualify for health coverage through another job, grandchildren, elected official and third party contractors such as the members of the public service board. That’s another reason why most of city council wants a do-over vote.

City Council on Tuesday voted against bringing a non-discrimination clause that would void the November ordinance to the voters in May. Representatives Susie Byrd, Rachel Quintana and Steve Ortega all voted to bring the clause to the voters, but were outnumbered by Beto O’Rourke, Ann Morgan Lilly, Carl Robinson and Eddie Holguin, Jr.

The non-discrimination clause would have been added to the city charter, the city’s guiding document. It’s like a constitution that lays out a municipality’s values. The non-discrimination clause read as follows:

“The City shall afford equal employment and benefit opportunities to all qualified individuals in compliance with all applicable laws, without regard to their race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, color, religion, ethnic background or national origin, age, disability, or any other characteristic or status that is protected by federal, state, or local law.”

Originally, Pastor Tom Brown, believed the city was being deceptive by excluding the last sentence in the ballot measure – the paragraph voters would see, if the measure would have passed. A city attorney said it had been drafted that way only to save space. Before the vote, City Representative Susie Byrd asked that the voters see the entire clause, if it came to a vote.

That didn’t make a difference, in the end, since Council shot down the non-discrimination clause. They did have an alternative, another way to bring this to the voters in May. Instead of a lengthy values statement like the clause, City Representative Beto O’Rourke suggested residents in May vote on the following measure:

“Shall the City Charter be amended to provide health benefits to the gay, lesbian, transgender, and unmarried heterosexual partners of City employees?”

In two weeks, City Council will vote whether to put that on the May ballot.

The domestic benefits issue has pitted the religious group, who’s members believe homosexuality is an abomination to God, against the City Council. The only City Representative to have been opposed to domestic benefits since the beginning has been Carl Robinson. He is skeptical of the legality of the health benefits, because of the state’s ban on gay marriage and providing equal benefits to civil unions.

After several residents and city council members voiced their concerns on Tuesday, Robinson said he wanted to weigh in after listening to all of the opinions. He said he had been ‘called names’ because of his stance against the benefits, and had been told he was discriminating against the gay community – something he denied. Robinson then made a personal revelation. “One of my brothers is gay… had a sex change. I love my brother, now my sister”, he said.

Representative Beto O’Rourke said that providing benefits was a moral, financial, and practical advantage for the city. He said the city had a moral obligation because of their stance on anti-discrimination.”Our values is that we do not discriminate based on things you cannot control. Some people are born gay, some people are born straight, some people are born transgender, some people are not.” he said.

O’Rourke also believes providing the benefits will help the city recruit and retain talented people. He said El Paso has exported more young people to other cities than any other city with a population over 500,000.

Several other Texas cities provide domestic benefits for their employees, and have never been successfully challenged in court.

Several municipal judges, retirees, and domestic partners have sued the city of El Paso over the ordinance initiated by the religious group. They claim its unconstitutional and discriminatory. Federal Judge Frank Montalvo granted a temporary injunction on the ordinance last week, until he decides if its constitutional. That ruling is expected in mid-April.

El Paso for Traditional Family Values (EPFTFV) tried to intervene in the case, fearing the city’s hired attorney would not properly defend their ordinance, since the city council has been opposed to it all along. The judge allowed them to participate, but has not officially deemed their ‘intervention’ as valid.