Swarens: Is Zionsville’s peaceful expansion of LGBT rights the emerging norm?

They’re both Republican strongholds. Both centers of wealth and power. Both home to alluring neighborhoods and great schools. Both home to Bub’s Burgers and the Big Ugly.

Yet, there has been one contentious, noisy difference between Carmel and Zionsville this summer.

A few weeks ago, Carmel became the latest battleground in Indiana’s ongoing conflict over LGBT rights as the city council considers a strong civil rights law that would include sexual orientation and gender identity.

And Zionsville? Well, a few week ago, the town council unanimously passed and the mayor signed a strong civil rights law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

Surprisingly, Zionsville’s elected leaders did that, according to the council president, without a peep of protest from either the local citizenry or outside agitators before, during and after the vote.

How could that be? How could a similar proposal on the same issue generate so much angst in Carmel but trigger nothing but yawns just west of the Boone and Hamilton county line?

Zionsville’s Town Council president, Steve Mundy, had an interesting theory about that when I talked to him last week. “We didn’t send out a press release,” he said.

Could it really be that simple? Perhaps. Most folks tend not to pay much attention to what their local elected leaders are up to unless they’re alerted by the news media or citizen groups. The ordinance also was reviewed and approved a couple of days after the July 4 holiday weekend, which is not exactly a prime time for civic engagement.

But the ignorance is bliss theory would only explain the lack of push back before the vote. Now that the new law has gained publicity, there’s still more Zzzz’s in Zionsville than normally would be expected. After all, this is a community that hit the barricades to turn away Wal-mart a few years ago. The Eagles may not always scream, but they tend to be far from passive.

Now, a few observers have raised the question of whether the council hid the proposal before the vote to avoid the type of public fight that Carmel leaders have endured.

Mundy denies that was the case. He pointed out that town officials handled the civil rights ordinance the same as any other proposal. Both the meeting agenda and the proposed law were posted on the town’s website, and the vote took place at a scheduled public meeting.

The new law, by the way, establishes a committee — made up of three council members and two Zionsville residents or business owners — to review complaints of discrimination involving employment, housing and public accommodation. The council appointed the committee members at its Aug. 3 meeting, again without controversy.

It’s important to note that, as with most such laws, houses of worship, religious schools and religious nonprofits are exempt.

In addition to sexual orientation and gender identity, Zionsville’s ordinance bars discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, disability, or familial, veteran or military status. And the review committee has the power to subpoena witnesses and records as well as impose fines if the panel determines the law was violated.

So this is not some milquetoast law passed merely as a public relations move.

Two other interesting points about the Zionsville experience.

First, the town’s mayor, Jeff Papa, works as chief of staff and chief legal counsel for the Indiana Senate. Yes, that Senate, the one that helped bring down the RFRA storm on Indiana this past spring.

Papa signed the ordinance, but declined to discuss the new law on the record when I called him last week. He referred me, instead, to Mundy.

I’d caution, however, against reading too much into Papa’s reticence. He works behind the scenes in his regular job at the Statehouse and serves in a higher profile as his hometown’s newly elected and first mayor on the side. On this issue, Papa is caught in the awkward middle between his professional and public service roles.

The second tidbit involves the Indiana Family Institute, an organization that has helped lead the fight against legal protections for LGBT citizens in Carmel and elsewhere. The group’s president, Curt Smith, has been a resident of Zionsville for several years.

(A personal aside: I’ve known Curt for many years, and have always considered him an honorable man who deeply loves God, his family and his community. We may have differing views on important issues, but many of us continue to pray for Curt and his family as they deal with the recent heartbreaking news that son Andrew’s cancer has returned).

Is there a takeaway from the quiet Zionsville vs. contentious Carmel experience?

It may well be that the outrage associated with expansion of civil rights is heard and seen only when it’s manufactured. Absent the orchestration of a few statewide groups, it’s possible that much of the public just isn’t that afraid of extending protections against discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation.

A couple of statewide polls this summer support that idea; both showed a significant majority of Hoosiers in favor of expanding Indiana’s civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. And Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard told a group of The Star’s editors and writers last week that an internal poll conducted for his campaign this spring found that about 70 percent of Carmel residents support civil rights expansion.

Rather than an outlier, maybe Zionsville’s experience is an accurate read of where most Hoosiers’ hearts and minds are these days when they think about how their fellow citizens should be treated.

Contact Swarens at tim.swarens@indystar.com. Follow him on Twitter @tswarens.