07-26-10 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2010 assessment is based on the fact that the way in which sexual orientation and gender identity are defined in the proposed ordinance goes beyond simply and individual’s “self- identity” or “self-image” to also include “appearance, expression or behavior.” In other words, homosexual activities as well as homosexual orientation are being given special status and special protection. While the proposed ordinance specifically excludes religious organizations from having to comply with these special rights, what about the right of conscientious citizens who have principled objections to these types of lifestyles and behaviors? For example, why should a family in a duplex that is renting the other side of their home be legally forced to lease to an openly homosexual couple? Why, as well should an employer be legally forced to accept the cross-dressing habits of an employee? What, in fact, if this employee is a grade school teacher of young children in one of our public schools? In addition, as Bishop D’Arcy stated in 2006, there is no reason to believe that the matter will stop here: “Efforts such as these have been followed in other communities by efforts to have public school children indoctrinated even as early as second grade to accept homosexual lifestyles and behaviors as normal. Often, those who have principled objections to this are labeled as prejudiced or “homophobic.” Instead of building greater tolerance, this ordinance may actually be helping to build greater intolerance of those who, on the one hand, believe every person should be treated with dignity, but also are deeply opposed to homosexual activity and to the gay lifestyle.” While some members of the South Bend Common Council have stated that this measure is necessary in order to attract innovative technological companies to the South Bend area, I question whether this is really true and whether it is not very short- sighted. A stable and flourishing community is certainly one with jobs, but it is also one where children flourish in families based upon the stable marriages of father and mother. Any attempt to build community that distorts and weakens the links among sexuality; marriage and family life are bound to produce more confusion and family disintegration in the end. We want to be a welcoming community but not at the expense of the strong moral principles upon which any stable flourishing community are founded. Charles Rice, 57800 Tyholland, Mishawaka, Indiana, spoke regarding the constitutional right of this bill. The judgment that he offered back in 2006 is the same and he cannot recall having seen a more defectively drafted bill and the vagueness is a violation of due process of the law. When an enactment is vague it means that people have to guess as to what is means. And there is a right under due process of the law to know precisely what is forbidden and what is allowed under the law. He respectively suggests that it is the Council’s responsibility to make sure that before a vote is taken to understand exactly what means is and he feels that cannot happen. Barbara M. Curlett, 1333 1/2 N. Chicago Av., Goshen, Indiana, stated that she would like to talk about her experiences tonight. She stated that she used to be a lesbian woman until she met Jesus Christ who has delivered her from that life. He has saved her and redeemed her and gave her many, many blessings. One of those blessing is the freedom she has in him and doesn’t have to worry about being discriminated against because he has delivered her from that, she doesn’t have to worry about her self image because he has given her a self-image or how other’s perceive her because she knows how God perceives her. She thanked the Council for listening tonight and ask God to bless everyone tonight. Mario Sims, 23778 Grove Street, South Bend, Indiana stated that he has placed his life and freedom on the line to fight for civil rights. He has been on the board of the NAACP, Chairperson of the Urban League and received many awards for Civil Rights issues. He stated that it is very disturbing to him that this issue is perceived as a civil rights issue. This is not a civil rights issue nor is it an economic issue. This is not an issue that should be before this Council tonight. Precious resources are being wasted on an issue that has nothing to do with civil rights. Micah Clark, Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana, P. O. Box 40307 Indianapolis, Indiana, stating that he is here tonight representing Glen Lavy, Senior Vice President of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the truth. Mr. Clark read excerpts from a letter signed by Mr. Glen Lavy they are as stated that the ADF is a not-for-profit legal alliance of more than 9