In San Antonio, a battle over a proposed ordinance to add “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” to the city’s nondiscrimination code has dominated headlines the last few weeks.
The San Antonio Express-News has been all over the story, including a report last week by award-winning Godbeat pro Abe Levy (who has been tweeting about the debate) on black and Latino clergy rallying against the measure.
Some in the gathering lamented the lack of more vocal opposition by the Archdiocese of San Antonio, which has supported the proposal’s spirit but has joined other pastors in expressing concerns about religious liberty and free speech.
True confession: I have not read all the coverage or even a huge amount of it.
So I want to be completely open about what I am about to do, which is to nitpick two paragraphs in a single story — today’s front-page report on the ordinance’s passage.
But before I get to those two paragraphs, here’s the top of the story:
An issue that starkly divided San Antonio this summer was resolved Thursday when the City Council approved an ordinance that adds protections for sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status to the city code.
In four separate public forums since mid-August, more than 1,500 people approached the dais at City Hall and addressed the council, speaking passionately in support of and against the ordinance that drew national attention. Final public comments were heard about three hours before the council took its vote.
In separate votes, the council approved adding veteran status 9-2, and approved adding LGBT protections 8-3.
“It’s a common-sense ordinance that’s going to treat everyone equally,” Mayor Julián Castrosaid after the vote. “Nobody will be a second-class citizen in San Antonio. Here, there will be basic fairness and common decency for everybody.”
When it was over, red-clad supporters of the policy walked victoriously out of the council chambers, waving rainbow flags. They spilled into Main Plaza shouting mantras of equality and justice.
And opponents, dressed in blue, left quietly in defeat, vowing to fight the ordinance in the courts and to unseat or recall elected leaders for ignoring their pleas to table or spike the measure altogether.
Now to my criticism.
These are the last two paragraphs of the story, quoting a councilman named Ray Lopez:
Lopez said he was hurt his personal Catholic faith was questioned. In supporting the measure, Lopez echoed Pope Francis’s position on gay priests.
“Who am I to judge? I keep coming back to that,” Lopez said. “It gives me a solid personal position. I will be able to sleep tonight.”
On such a complex subject, could a quote be any more simplistic?
Did Lopez really echo the pope’s position on gays?
Mollie did nice job in late July of highlighting exactly what Francis told the media and putting it into proper context. I wish the Express-News had done the same.