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