Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
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 > 18 > Entry
From Peggy Lehner: Gay rights bill is about inalienable rights
This is the prepared text that State Rep. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, read from before voting for legislation banning discrimination against gays in employment and housing.
I rise to support House Bill 176.
This has not been an easy decision for me, and I know that there are many people who are going to be very disappointed by my support for this legislation. But I would like to share with this body why I have decided to support 176.
I have spent much of my life defending the right to life of unborn children.
While my personal religious faith has certainly played an important role in my opposition to abortion, ultimately that opposition has been grounded in perhaps the most famous sentence contained in the founding documents of our nation — those immortal words penned by Thomas Jefferson:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I have vigorously argued for years that to deny the right to life to unborn children violates one of the most important principles upon which our great nation was founded — the unalienable right to life.
There are those who have taken the liberty of substituting the principle of unalienable rights with a principle of freedom of choice. I am not among those.
The constitution does not speak of choice when it refers to life, but nor does it speak of choice when it addresses liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The constitution does not grant this body the privilege of conferring liberty only on those who agree with us, live like us or believe what we believe. An unalienable right is one which we have no ability to deny and which, as legislators, we are sworn to defend.
There are those who are concerned that HB 176 creates special protections for one particular class of people. That simply is not the case, for those protections reside not in what this body does here today, but rather what our forefathers chose to provide over 200 years ago.
What we are doing today is simply reaffirming a principle upon which this nation was founded. There are also many people who, in good faith, believe that this legislation violates their freedom of religion. I appreciate the fact that the sponsors of this bill have attempted to take those concerns into account by excluding religious institutions from the employment provisions in the bill.
Balancing conflicting rights is never easy. The solutions are rarely perfect, but, in the end, I think (House Bill) 176 does a good job of affirming the basic natural rights of all citizens. I support this bill and urge your careful consideration as well.
Permalink | Comments (29) | Post your comment | Categories: Civil Rights, Guest Columns, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Comments
By mlh
September 18, 2009 12:45 PM | Link to this
Bravo! Well spoken. While I may not agree with her stance on abortion, I see that it is a heartfelt well-contemplated moral view and I have complete respect for it. Likewise, she is a level voice of reason on the issue of human rights being extended to gays and lesbians. Thank you.By mlh
September 18, 2009 12:46 PM | Link to this
Bravo! Well spoken. While I may not agree with her stance on abortion, I see that it is a heartfelt well-contemplated moral view and I have complete respect for it. Likewise, she is a level voice of reason on the issue of human rights being extended to gays and lesbians. Thank you.By Bob540
September 18, 2009 1:11 PM | Link to this
Personally, I support plural marriage. I think having more than two adults supporting the family and rearing children makes a lot of sense (especially today). I think it is certainly possible to love more than one person. But, our society has decided that marriage should be restricted to two people (heretofore, one man and one woman), and I’m not going to accuse my fellow citizens of being “haters” for making this restriction. I’m not going to claim that the forefathers provided an “inalienable right” for more than two people to marry in pursuit of happiness. Legal rights can be extended to anyone without calling it “marraiage.” I think the voters should decide this, not the legislature.By Stephen
September 18, 2009 2:36 PM | Link to this
Bob540 your argument is flawed. And here is how: This is about equal rights. Straight people can marry one person they love. Gay people should be able to marry the person they love as well. Then, everyone has the right to marry “one” person they love. Thats equal rights. Even if you believe in plural marriage, you are still allowed to marry today. Gay people cannot. That is the difference. Not equal between two groups of citizens. so your argument doenst stand to the light of reason in this case.By stephen
September 18, 2009 2:39 PM | Link to this
Furthermore, as Rep Lehrner alluded to in her argument: these are inalienable rights and thus cannot and should not be taken away by fellow citizens. Therefore, to vote on another’s inalienable rights to happiness and liberty is not constitutional.By Bob540
September 18, 2009 3:06 PM | Link to this
It is only different because it serves your purpose to see it as different, but to me it makes no more sense to say that three people cannot marry than to say same-sex people cannot marry. I’m not necessarily against gay marriage. I just think the institution of marriage is something that the populace should define and not legislators. Just because you don’t have “marriage” does not mean you couldn’t be granted every legal right of marriage. Actually I think we should do away with “marriage” and in its place adopt a civil contract for all that spells out the rights and obligations of the parties. The worst thing we do now is promote people making such an important decision based upon emotion and not information and practicality.By Pat
September 18, 2009 5:11 PM | Link to this
Shame on Rep.Lehrner. You should be very ashamed of yourself for supporting perversion. If you are a Christian then you know how God feels about a man lying down with another man!! He calls it perversion.By stephen
September 18, 2009 5:55 PM | Link to this
Your logic is off Bob540, thats all i was pointing out. There is a difference between 2 people getting married and 3. Its a whole other issue, whether it feels like no difference to you or not there is. Its a fact. 2 people are different than 3 people. God doenst feel that way Pat, the MEN that wrote the Bible said that, and they also said that eating shellfish was an abomination, and that marrying a non virgin did not constitute a marriage. They also wrote not to judge others, which you clearly don’t listen to. Who is the sinner now Pat? Why do all the uneducated Bible thumpers leave out the parts that they don’t like but apply others….very intellectually dishonest.By Get real
September 18, 2009 6:15 PM | Link to this
who are you people to judge anyway?! go crawl inside a hole! Mrs. Lehner and the other politicians did their job. We are ALL protected by the constitution whether you like the other group or not. Even if you think they are the biggest sinners in the world. They get the same rights as you and everyone else under the law. there is no “liberty and justice for some (aka. if you think and believe like me)” in the constitution. I believe it says “liberty and justice for ALL.” get over it. Move on. get a life!By Old soul
September 18, 2009 9:25 PM | Link to this
Rep. Lehner wrote an excellent piece. Pat, your attitude is what drove me away from anything to do with church and religion. Intolerant, narrow-minded holier-than-thou. Are you so much better than Jesus that you can’t just forgive, love one another, etc. etc.? It occurs to me the old testament was written by old men from the very region that is home to Muslims, etc. Extremely rigid. Before Pat throws those verbal stones, he or she [Pat is a neutral name] should gaze in the mirror~judge not lest ye be judged. The term “marriage” is the hiccup for most folks because since the beginning of recorded history, ‘marriage’ has been between a man and woman. I would rather have been raised by a same-sex couple who encouraged me, supported me and made me feel loved than the alcoholic, domestic-violent parents who made my life a living hell. That existence still affects me now and I’m in my 50’s. So, Pat, you think marriage belongs to men and women, go back in time and live my life; let me know how your life turns out, and what you would have chosen instead.By kat
September 19, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this
Peggy, you disappoint me and your consituents. No more will I post your campaign sign in my lawn! Besides, I don’t get it… why do we pass laws for distinct groups regarding the way they have sex? I know people who won’t have sex or a committed relationship with anyone. Will you support a law to protect that specific class of people? Gays are already protected by the Ohio and the United States Constitution against discrimination as individuals. We don’t need to place gays in a special category. And your interpretation of Jefferson is way off course and an irrational argument. PEGGY LEHNER, CHANGE YOUR MIND!By Dear Kat
September 19, 2009 4:57 PM | Link to this
How is it irrational? If you make claims, please support them with logic. And you are wrong, gay people are not protected form discrimination in the US or in Ohio. Not sure where you are getting your facts, but like alot of people who argue like you, it seems you just make them up. Go Peggy Good Job…ignore the nonsense from these haters.By daisy
September 19, 2009 10:29 PM | Link to this
Getting employed at any particular business isn’t a “right”. If a person has worked hard to build a company, owns that company, and hates Christians, or black people or gay people, doesn’t he have the ‘right’ to not hire them? Although it is highly repugnant and immoral, it is his right to run his company as he pleases, and why should he have to hire anyone if he doesn’t want to? These laws are unfair to business owners. If emplyers hire a minority, who then delivers poor job performance, employers cannot fire them without real fear of getting slapped with a lawsuit. If Lehner thinks this tactic is going to get more pro-life votes, she is sadly mistaken.By Paula
September 20, 2009 7:59 PM | Link to this
I am so happy with Rep. Lehner support of this bill. As I have many gay friends and feel they deserve the same rights as us. Not Special rights just equal rights. The gay community is not asking for anything that we don’t have rather just the opportunity to be treated equual. I am proud of you Peggy!By JSO
September 20, 2009 8:07 PM | Link to this
An employer is allowed (with proper documentation) to terminate any employee regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender. A employer does not have a right to discriminate against anyone for race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or gender. Ask those 15,000 troops who did defend our country proudly who were let go because of their homosexuality. I thought we supported our troops? The big issue here is discrimination. Until we stand together to protect the rights of individuals (Most recently: Women and African Americans), people will continue to discriminate and expose the hatred we see today. Those of you who quote the Bible, please don’t ignore the fact that discrimination runs rampant, especially with the female gender. Don’t pick and choose! Walk a mile in another individual’s shoes!By Stephen
September 21, 2009 8:21 AM | Link to this
I don’t think an employer should have the right to discriminate against people for gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, age or disability. Daisy, there are laws about how people treat other people that make it a kinder and more civil society. I don’t think it should be legal to fire people because they are gay, or because you don’t like the color of their skin, etc. It should be based on performance and abilities. Also, this bill protects gays from being kicked out by landlords who don’t like gay people too. dont forget about that.By Stephen
September 21, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this
So by your logic then Daisy, you would advocate that if an employer wants to fire someone with a disablitity he should be able to do that because he doesnt like disabled people? Hopefully you arent suggesting that. Clearly we have laws to prpotect vulnerable peoples. That is what makes us a civilized country. Most of the people who are against protections for minorities if you look deep enough has to do with thier own dislike of those minorities. They don’t want to have to stop discriminating! sorry! you lose haters!By Bob540
September 21, 2009 1:21 PM | Link to this
Not allowed to discriminate? Where do you see that? Ask a divorced man if he got treated fairly in the divorce and child custody. Ask male workers who are warned against “sexual harassment” for doing the same things female workers do with impunity. No discrimination? I wish that were true.By Bob540
September 21, 2009 1:26 PM | Link to this
As for gays and discrimination: By gay leadership’s own admission, gay people have, on-average, higher education and higher earnings than the average for the general populace. How is it “discrimination” if you are doing better than non-gays? The issue is not discrimination, it is social acceptance. And, sorry, you can’t legislate social acceptance.By Washington Township
September 21, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this
A big suprise to see this. Is there a primary challenge in the future for Peggy Lehner?By Stephen
September 22, 2009 12:10 PM | Link to this
Blah Blah Blah….the homophobes will stop at nothing…just hot air coming out of their mouths. This is a great thing for the thousands of gay Ohioans who feel afraid to come out or be discovered at work. the majority of Ohioans (68%) i believe according to the latest polling support this type of bill. sorry homophobes…you lose this one.By Bob540
September 22, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this
Question: What is it about a gay person’s demeanor or actions that would get them fired? If they are reliable, courteous, know how to do their job and do it, why would they be fired “for being gay”? Are they somehow displaying their gay-ness at work. Is that the inappropriate behavior that results in their termination? Any examples you’d care to give on how gay people are being forced out of jobs?By JSO
September 22, 2009 7:07 PM | Link to this
Bob540, You won’t have to look far. Remember the policy, “don’t ask, don’t tell?” 14,000 troops who defended our country were dishonorably discharged. It has nothing to do with “how they act” or their job performance. All that has to be said, or admitted is they are gay. Nothing else. How sad is that, we’ll let them risk a life for our country, for us, but we won’t provide any kind of job security. You brought up a great point about reverse discrimination and things are now changing. This shows that you are aware of work place discrimination and are in support of ending it. And, as for those gays you speak of who have higher education, good for them and anyone who works hard to obtain higher degrees, they should get higher pay. With education comes those rewards and benefits. If a gay person is showing inappropriate behavior at work then they should be let go for the inappropriate behavior, not because they are gay.By mc
September 22, 2009 11:32 PM | Link to this
Many of those commenting seem to prefer the topic of gay marriage to the actual effect of this bill. This bill simply ensures that a gay person can’t be denied housing or employment for being gay. Do those who think Representative Lehner did the wrong thing in supporting it want gay people to be homeless and jobless? Should they give up and live on charity in shelters for the rest of their lives? How is that good for ANYONE, gay or straight? Good for Rep. Lehner for caring about all the people she represents and being consistent, according to her beliefs, about protecting their rights.By Bob540
September 23, 2009 12:46 PM | Link to this
JSO and mc: Do we disagree? I am not in favor of workplace or housing discrimination, but such discrimination will persist with or without this legislation. If nothing else, short, overweight, white, straight, able-bodied, Christian males will be vulnerable, as everyone else will have a law to protect them. And I reiterate: You cannot legislate social acceptance, though I think that is the intent of some of these proposed laws.By jacob
September 25, 2009 7:25 PM | Link to this
“What is it about a gay person’s demeanor or actions that would get them fired?” NOTHING. That’s the issue at hand. Nothing about a gay person’s inherent demeanor or actions should get them fired. However, what your question should have said is that “What law is there to stop employers from injecting their asinine homophobic views into hiring/firing practises?” Don’t listen to some of the idiots on this board, Rep. Lehner. You have done a great job representing your consituents and you make many of us proud to call ourselves Republicans again.By Remno
September 25, 2009 10:43 PM | Link to this
Stephen, I agree with you that Bob540 is just plain wrong on all points. But then, so are you. I don’t know how you presume to know the mind of God but spare us your great wisdom. Furthermore, Pat is probably has a better education than you do. You need to check your grammar, spelling and syntax. Grammatically your letter was barely comprehensible. As for logic, you’ve got a ways to go there too, my friend. You just can’t have it both ways as you try to do. You point out to Pat that men wrote the bible and suggest that he/she accepts only the parts he/she agrees with and rejects those he/she doesn’t. Clearly you don’t agree with much of it. But then you invoke the biblical ‘judge not’ passage to show how Pat is wrong. Maybe you need to go back to school yourself.By Stephen
September 26, 2009 2:16 AM | Link to this
Dear Remno, What you said doesn’t even make sense! I can’t even follow it! what are you talking about? Of course I use the Bible to point out how she is ignoring other parts and sinning by doing it. I basically beat her at her own argument. So it looks like it is you that needs the schooling, dear Remno. Another thing, please take a look at your own letter! full of typos! please don’t pass judgement on my typing when clearly your skills arent much better. see you in typing class b*tchBy Stephen
September 26, 2009 2:29 AM | Link to this
and BTW, I highly doubt that anyone who believes in using the Bible to discriminate against other people has a better education than I do. And you sticking up for people like Pat shows you have just about as much class as she/he does by discriminating against a group of people who are already down and out. Don’t try to come in here discriminating and talking badly about gay people and think you won’t hear it from me. I’ll be in here. every time