My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-26-10 Common Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2010
>
07-26-10 Common Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2011 12:33:11 PM
Creation date
12/2/2010 12:47:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2010 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Patrick Mangan, P. O. Box 552, Notre Dame, Indiana, spoke in opposition to Bill 30-10. <br />He stated that the Council has crucial decision to make that will impact and affect the <br />entire community. Despite all the eloquent discussion from people speaking on behalf of <br />the bill and from the former Governor which he has know for over 25 years he would like <br />to bring the discussion back to true reality. He stated that he has been ministering and <br />bringing people out of homosexuality for over 30 years. He stated that the Council has <br />heard emotionally based pleas to embrace homosexuality as legitimate. While this tiny <br />micro-minority has the right to promote their views they are still wrong. The fact that <br />they can so readily promote their views is a glaring demonstration that in fact they have <br />not been treated with intolerance but in fact have been tolerated in spite of the fact the <br />majority of society rejects their lifestyle as unhealthy and unholy. Not in public opinion <br />polls but thirty times across this country when special rights in the form of gay marriage <br />has appeared on the ballot it has been soundly rejected. He stated that he has been <br />ministering to those struggling with same sex attraction for over thirty years this lifestyle <br />is truly harmful and dark. It is not loving as some have asserted to affirm those in this <br />behavior as it often takes a deadly toll on those who stay in this lifestyle, while it may be <br />painful to be loving opposed in an unhealthy behavior for those that seek help change is <br />not only possible but very real and often a life saving experience. To be lovingly <br />opposed and offer the promise of freedom and restoration from the terrible pains of <br />consequences of living out a same sex attracted lifestyle. A dear friend who died just <br />before his 40 birthday from complications from HIV/AIDS opposed this bill the last time <br />it was introduced. He told him that it was key to unseat the lie that this behavior is an <br />identity. He is no longer alive or here to loving oppose this bill. Mr. Mangan stated that <br />is why he is here in part to let his story be heard. He was free from same sex attraction <br />for nearly 20 years following his encounter with Jesus after living a life of homosexual <br />promiscuity as a teenager, he was one of the kindest men he ever new and was an elder in <br />his church. However, he was not free from the disease for the rest of his unnaturally <br />short life and it eventually ended his life. His heart was for those who were being told a <br />lie that this is their true identity and that they cannot change to hear the truth that they <br />cannot only change but be transformed through the love of Jesus and the power of Holy <br />Spirit. There is a false proposition here that what we do is who were are, and that if we <br />reject a persons bad behavior we are rejecting them as a person. This is absolutely <br />untrue and as a society we don’t apply this standard anywhere else. As it would be unfair <br />and unmanageable, this false proposition has been the basis of the many false claims that <br />it is unchristian to oppose this behavior and to loving oppose any attempt to legitimize it. <br />Indeed it is unchristian to call a behavior that the scripture condemns as good. Thank you <br />for listening and but love them as you would your children and reject the bad behavior. <br /> <br />Fred Everett, 114 W. Wayne Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is reading a <br />statement on behalf of Bishop Kevin C. Rhodes. As the new Bishop of Fort Wayne- <br />South Bend since January, I have had the privilege of getting to know the communities of <br />Fort Wayne and South Bend as well as many other sin the diocese. I have come to feel <br />very much at home here in northeast Indiana and to appreciate the strongly-held values <br />evident among the people of our area. Recently, in fact, a number of concerned citizens <br />made me aware of an attempt in the South Bend Common Council to establish special <br />rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This proposed ordinance <br />which is being promoted by groups of “Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexual and Transgendered <br />Persons” would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the standard list of <br />characteristics protected from discrimination, namely those based on race, religion, color, <br />sex disability, nationality or ancestry, and familial status. In 2006, the South Bend <br />Common Council attempted to do this as well but the measure failed to pass. At that <br />time, my predecessor, Bishop John M. D’Arcy, issued a statement of opposition to any <br />effort which would establish special rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender <br />identity. Today, I do so as well. While I do not question the good intentions of those <br />involved in this effort, this ordinance seems more about validating in law homosexual <br />lifestyles and behaviors than it is about addressing unjust discrimination. Without <br />questions, everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with dignity. Everyone should <br />enjoy the same basic human rights. The Church deplores and type of violent action or <br />hateful speech aimed at homosexual persons. We should not, however, create special <br />rights to validate lifestyles and behaviors to which many of our citizens strongly object <br />for reasons of moral principle, not prejudice or “homophobia.” The main reason for this <br /> 8 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.