|
REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006
<br />and heterosexual orientation. These are terms that by definition encompass all adults
<br />who seem to have really any sort of sexual attraction to other adults. Some may argue
<br />that those sexual orientations out of those just listed are mental illnesses. And in such do
<br />not deserve this special protection, such persons point out that homosexuality was at one
<br />time considered a mental illness, but in the 1970’s was removed from the category by the
<br />APA. They took a vote on the matter. Surely, these and other conditions could be
<br />removed from the list of mental illnesses, by a popular vote of the APA, meaning they
<br />would then mandate special protections under this law. Others may argue that those
<br />sexual orientations outside of those listed, cross the threshold into criminal activity, and
<br />as such, might not be covered by this law. Mr. Bruner pointed out that only in the last
<br />three years has the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws, which essentially
<br />criminalized homosexual activity up to that point in several states. Although it may seem
<br />absurd, only a majority vote in the legislature is needed to appeal pedophilia laws or a
<br />court ruling of similar matters. Yet, 50-100 years ago, it would have been absurd to say
<br />anti-homosexual sodomy laws will one day be overturned. Futhermore, this amendment
<br />carries no clause to his understanding excepting orientations deemed to be mental
<br />illnesses or criminal. Finally reaching clarity on sexual orientation, it seems overly
<br />ambiguous for us, and most importantly does not say what is really meant. Yet, these
<br />words and phrases very clearly cover orientation, other than those just listed, and covers
<br />only orientation and not action.He urged the Council not to pass this resolution as stated,
<br />because the resolution does not seem to ask or enforce what it is actually wanted. It is
<br />explained to him as being one thing, and has turned out to be another. He questioned the
<br />purpose of this commission, that investigates such bias’ because political speech is not
<br />receiving extra-special protection, and indeed he could be punished for these very
<br />reasons. (Time limited emposed)
<br />Tom Uebbing, 1737 Brookmede, South Bend, Indiana, stated that this issue can be
<br />summarized as two wrongs don’t make a right!By opposing this legislation, he is not in
<br />anyway condoning the verbal or physical abuse that may have been heard tonight. Mr.
<br />Uebbing, stated that unlike one of the speakers tonight, he is willing to do business with
<br />homosexuals. He stated that he had a couple of ladies come into where he works, one
<br />referred to the other as her partner, the other called her dear. The factors that he objects
<br />to, just don’t come into play with that. He has no animosity towards homosexuals.
<br />However, this is a two-dimensional issue, and existing laws already cover a lot of what
<br />has been brought up tonight. What citizens and the Council cannot ignore however, is
<br />that the basis on which these special rights are being founded involves unnatural and
<br />immoral sexual activity, which should never be elevated for a special place in the law.
<br />Mr. Uebbing stated that he makes a distinction between orientation and the actions. He
<br />because of this inescapable moral dimension of the issue there are limits on the
<br />accommodations that society can give those who are living the gay lifestyle. His
<br />particular concerns, which have been mentioned many, many times before, has to do
<br />with, positions involving youth, role models for youth and the education of youth should
<br />this thing pass. With all the negative medical, physical, moral, emotional effects
<br />mentioned, with those effect in mind, the frequent charges in the press of bigotry, just
<br />don’t stick. By voting no on this proposal, the Council can be quite confident, that such a
<br />decision, involves not bigotry, but setting common sense limits. He stated that he
<br />attending the public hearing chaired by Councilmember Charlotte Pfeifer, held at the
<br />Fiddler’s Hearth in 2004, he was struck by the good qualities of endearing humanity of
<br />some of the gay right supporters who spoke. His appreciation for the goodness and
<br />humanity that he saw in them, could not lead him however, to endorse special rights for
<br />homosexuals. Because then he would not be loyal to the truth or to them. He would not
<br />be their true friend, for love and truth are inseparable. While pro family groups such as
<br />no special rights may be considered the greatest enemy of gay rights supporters, in the
<br />end, they are the best friend that gays ever had, because they are willing to speak the truth
<br />in love, even at the cost of rejection. He humbly asked the Council to vote against this
<br />proposal.
<br />Kevin L. Mitschelen, 16061 Petro Drive, Mishawaka, Indiana, stated that his is a father,
<br />an elder at City Chapel, and married to a great and wonderful wife. He thanked the
<br />Council for believing in democracy, he sees it displayed here tonight.He stated that the
<br />Council is hearing from the Kings and Queens of this land. He wanted the Council to
<br />th
<br />know that he is running a campaign, he is running as the 6 District, Representative
<br />31
<br />
<br />
|