|
REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006
<br />a tenured faculty member, very productive member at IUSB, a mother, a volunteer in the
<br />community and gives money to this community in a variety of ways. By not passing this
<br />bill, she is one of the statistics, one of the people that could possible be affected by not
<br />protecting GLBT people. She stated that she hopes the Council won’t let that happen.
<br />Stacy Davis, 304 Runaway Bay Circle, Mishawaka, Indiana, stated that she teaches in
<br />South Bend. She stated that she is both a student and a teacher of rhetorical criticism for
<br />the use of language to make a point. Although her area of expertise is Hebrew Bible, she
<br />respectfully suggested to the Council that the study of language may be useful as the
<br />Council decides whether they support the bill to add sexual orientation and gender
<br />identity to the South Bend Human Rights Ordinance. The idea that only identities based
<br />solely on genetics or those that are already existing are worthy of protection is
<br />unsupported by the existing ordinance as it reads, simply because there is no gene for
<br />religion. Therefore, even if homosexuality is a choice, and that is debatable, so is
<br />religion that is not debatable. The ordinance already protects religion as a choice. Some
<br />maybe concerned that the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to the
<br />ordinance creates some form of special rights. According to the American Heritage
<br />Dictionary, which she knows and loves, special means “surpassing what is common or
<br />usual or exceptional” guaranteeing rights of equal access to housing, employment and
<br />education to citizens who happen not be heterosexual is not exceptional. Such rights are
<br />basic. She stated that she is concerned what basic means and does not mean, may have
<br />clouded the debate concerning the proposed amendment. She understands that there is no
<br />hidden meaning or agenda behind the attempts to add language to the existing ordinance.
<br />The plainly stated goal is to guarantee protection to as many of South Bend Citizens as
<br />possible. Additionally, it should be noted that historically what has not been stated in
<br />plain language cannot be assumed. For example, although the Declaration of
<br />Independence which has been quoted several times tonight claim that all people are
<br />created equal, in the case of U.S. Citizens who happen to look like her, it took three
<br />constitutional amendments, one civil rights act, and a voting rights act to guarantee what
<br />the Declaration had supposedly assumed. She pleaded that the rights of gays, lesbian, bi-
<br />sexual and trans-gendered citizens need to be protected and are not protected in the
<br />current ordinance as it is written. Experience suggests otherwise, and no one should have
<br />to hope, assume or even have to pray, that their rights are guaranteed. Adding sexual
<br />orientation and gender identity to the ordinance would clearly state in writing the City’s
<br />commitment to equal protection under the law and the power of the specific written
<br />should not be underestimated in this matter.
<br />Mary Porter, 52081 Woodridge Drive, South Bend, Indiana, spoke on behalf of South
<br />Bend Equality, would like to reiterate why the proposed amendment is enforceable. She
<br />stated that the Home Rule Act and the Indiana Civil Rights Act provide the Common
<br />Council with legislative power to amend the ordinance. The Home Rule Act grants
<br />municipalities broad powers to effectively govern local affairs. She further noted that
<br />adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes does not cause a
<br />conflict with the Indiana Civil Rights Act. Indiana Courts have repeatedly ruled that a
<br />local ordinance and a state statute are in conflict, when the ordinance forbids that which
<br />the statute expressly permits. Not, where an ordinance merely supplements the
<br />protections that the statute already provides. Such supplemental burdens need only be
<br />logically consistent with the statutory purpose. The purpose of the Indiana Civil Rights
<br />Act is stated as follows: “The promotion of equal opportunity without regard to race,
<br />religions, colors, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry through reasonable methods.”
<br />The public policy underlying the Indiana Civil Rights Act is to provide equal opportunity
<br />in employment, housing, and public accommodations for all of the states citizens. The
<br />evidence presented to the Common Council showed that South Bend cannot promote
<br />equal opportunity for all of its citizens without adding sexual orientation and gender
<br />identity to the ordinance. The amendment does not conflict with state law and is in fact
<br />logically consistent with the statutory purpose and broad public policy underlying the
<br />ICRA. If this bill is approved, then enforcement should not be a problem. The members
<br />of South Bend Equality and other concerned citizens would not have worked on this
<br />ordinance for two years for the amendment, if it would simply be overturned. When you
<br />vote to approve this amendment, a historic moment, when you vote in favor of this
<br />amendment, you will be on record as being against discrimination. If the amendment is
<br />approved it doesn’t mean that discrimination against GLBT citizens will end. It means
<br />11
<br />
<br />
|