You know there’s a problem when your elected representatives are actively working to mandate that the scope of individuals susceptible to discrimination be broadened. Unfortunately, that’s what’s happening right now in the Michigan Legislature.

Under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976, discrimination on the basis of “religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status or marital status” is prohibited. Notably absent from that list are sexual orientation and gender identity.

Luckily, cities like Ann Arbor and Detroit have passed municipal ordinances that extend Elliott-Larsen to include those individuals who remain unprotected under current state law. According to Michigan’s constitution, this is within a city’s rights — each city and village “shall have the power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns.” If statewide antidiscrimination law is lacking, at least protections are being extended locally, right?

Well, not quite.

Enter state Rep. Tom McMillin (R-Rochester Hills), the sponsor of the draconian House Bill 5039. Introduced last October, HB 5039 would prohibit any state agency or unit of local government from adopting any local policies that protect groups not covered under Elliott-Larsen such as LGBT individuals. Furthermore, HB 5039 would nullify any existing local ordinances protecting those groups not covered by Elliott-Larsen. In other words, Lansing would throw Ann Arbor’s local protections out the window. HB 5039 also applies to public school districts, meaning that McMillin’s proposed legislation would invalidate and prohibit any anti-bullying policies pertaining to sexual orientation or gender identity.

The proposed legislation violates Michigan’s Constitution, so, in legal terms, I’m not particularly worried that it will hold up if passed. But I have some broader concerns with the principles of HB 5039 — how it’s being sold and what it means for Michigan.

McMillin claims that he’s simply aiming to standardize the “patchwork” of civil rights law in place across Michigan. This coming from the man who, according to LGBT newswire Pride Source, served as the Michigan Christian Coalition field director from 1994 to 1997, was instrumental in defeating Royal Oak, LGBT-friendly Human Rights Ordinance in 2000, sponsored a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage as Oakland County Commissioner in 2003 and, regarding that same resolution, said, “I think that the people who are caught up in the homosexual lifestyle need help. We encourage people to stop smoking. This resolution is the same sort of thing.”

He just wants to help! How considerate.

As an aside, excuse me for finding it funny that McMillin also serves as chair of the Michigan House of Representatives Oversight, Reform and Ethics Committee. Before that, he was chair of the Education Committee. Ethics and education. Yes, really. Clearly, it’s the ethical responsibility of elected representatives like McMillin to show the children of Michigan that homosexuality is — like smoking — an unhealthy addiction that, with the right regulation, can be discouraged.

In all seriousness, I find it insulting that McMillin would pass off HB 5039 as an innocent effort to streamline statewide civil rights, as if that made sense, anyway. This is an effort to reverse progress in LGBT civil rights. McMillin shouldn’t get away with calling it anything but that.

One week from today, on Feb. 13 at 7:00p.p., the Rochester Hills City Council will be meeting to consider adopting a similar resolution opposing HB 5039. This meeting is crucial. I encourage anyone interested in promoting equality and safeguarding civil rights to attend. Rochester Hills is McMillin’s home city. As such, it’s crucial that the City Council oppose HB 5039, and as cities like Ann Arbor have already done, show McMillin that the state does itself no favors by cutting off access to protection against discrimination.

University alum Ryan Leclerc, a current Law School student, is spearheading the campaign in Rochester Hills, where, after defeating HB 5039, he also hopes to get a city council resolution granting antidiscrimination protection to the LGBT community passed.

With an eye to the future, let’s make this the start of a debate on reforming Elliott-Larsen to include sexual orientation and gender identity. If anyone truly opposes extending antidiscrimination protections to individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, I’d love for you to tell me what year it is and what country we live in.

Daniel Chardell can be reached at chardell@umich.edu.