Mount Pleasant may be one step closer to adopting an anti-discrimination law on Monday, but the effort could still face roadblocks outside of City Hall.

At Monday's City Commission meeting, Norma Bailey, a city resident and spokeswoman for the movement, will help present the proposed ordinance. She said those involved have been preparing to answer potential questions from officials over the proposed ordinance following a brief address.

It’s only one of the several stages expected for the ordinance, which was drafted and proposed last year to protect people of more than a dozen demographics, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

If the city were to eventually adopt the law, it would be the nineteenth municipality and the last that's home to a large public university in the state to do so.

“Right now, the goal is to have the city council pass it,” Bailey said. “Speaking from experiences of other cities, what has happened is outside forces, specifically the American Family Association, have raised issues and said, ‘Wait a minute, the people haven’t decided, just a commission did. You need to go to a ballot and prove that the people want it.'”

The latest anti-discrimination ordinance adopted in the state, according to published reports, was last year in Traverse City, where city officials green-lighted the law before it was approved by voters. In 2009, Kalamazoo residents voted to adopt such an ordinance, after the city’s approval was received with some local controversy.

City Manager Kathie Grinzinger has said it’s all a part of the normal process of enacting all ordinances — that after a municipality’s approval, residents reserve the right to file a referendum to bring the decision to voters.

According to Mount Pleasant’s charter, an ordinance goes into effect after 30 days, unless such a referendum is filed.

Though this was the case in places such as Kalamazoo, the ordinance from which served as a model for Mount Pleasant's draft, no party has said if this city will meet the same fate.

Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan’s LGBT Project, said for the most part communities in Michigan have embraced anti-discrimination ordinances. Much of that is embedded in the history of civil rights starting at the local level, he said.

“This is no reinventing the wheel. It’s just a matter of treating people with dignity,” he said. “Most people don’t realize in the state of Michigan it’s legal to discriminate against gay people. That’s why it’s so important for communities to have the local human rights ordinances.”

Potential opposition

Agreeing with Bailey, Kaplan said the opposing agenda could come largely from representatives of American Family Association of Michigan. Contact with the American Family Association of Michigan were not returned as of Tuesday morning.

The draft ordinance was first handed to city commissioners in a November meeting and was later referred to the city attorney for analysis. Last week, that analysis, along with research of similar ordinances in other college towns, was the subject of a commission work session.

The draft would ban discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation, as well as policies or actions that have discriminatory effects. Regulation at the city level would supplement state and federal regulations by specifying the city as the agency responsible for enforcing it.

Bailey has attested to the “broadness of support” human rights regulations in Mount Pleasant have received, after tripling the number of businesses pledging support in the past several weeks and seeing hundreds of residents sign an online petition at www.mpwelcome.org.

However, much of the opposition could come from Lansing as the ordinance moves forward.

A bill was introduced to the state House in October aiming to amend Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to prohibit policies from any city village, township, county or school district authority that supersede a law at the state-level.

House Bill 5039, as it’s written, would affect local human rights ordinances, though so far it has not left committee.

“Clearly, if that piece of legislation came along, it’s unconstitutional,” Kaplan said, citing a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned a Colorado constitutional amendment because it would have prevented local governments from lawfully protecting LGBT citizens.

“Should this bill (see approval), we have every intention of fighting it in federal court,” he added.

If the matter comes up during the presentation to the City Commission Monday, Bailey said that moving forward to pass an ordinance is “the right thing to do, regardless if that bill passes.”

The presentation is scheduled at the start of Monday’s regular twice-monthly commission meeting, which will begin at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 302 W. Broadway St., pending any change in details later this week.