|
REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006
<br />of his brother, but also because of his children. The ordinance before the Council this
<br />evening, would have much more of a direct impact on services that the church provides
<br />to this city, then say for instances what has happened in the state of Massachusetts. The
<br />Supreme Court in that state decided to create homosexual marriage. One of the
<br />unintended consequences of that supreme court decision has been that Catholic Charities,
<br />long time provided of adoption services in Boston, has had to shut down its operation,
<br />because the church would not consent to placing children in homosexual families. The
<br />law now is interpreted to mandate it. A State wide decision saying that you must have
<br />gay marriage means that you cannot discriminate against homosexual in adoption. Mr.
<br />Dunlap questioned how this ordinance would effect Catholic Charities here is South
<br />Bend, through which he has adopted three of his children. How would it affect a school
<br />like St. Matthew’s where he sends his children. The language that Mr. Mangan referred
<br />to, seems very narrowly defined to protect religious educators and ministers. What about
<br />the science teacher, who is going to teach biology to the junior high kids, in a way that
<br />naturally of necessity touches on moral issues. What about the literature teachers, who
<br />much choose and teach literature that touches on the full range of human experience
<br />including important moral issues. If St. Matthews and other religious schools in this
<br />town are subject to the ordinance before the Council tonight, he would suggest that there
<br />is no way to protect those schools and the integrity of those schools of faith, be they
<br />Christian, Jewish, whatever! He thanked the Council for their kindness and leadership on
<br />this issue and the many prospective's that are brought here tonight.Mr. Dunlap stated on
<br />a final note that it was noted 79% of Indiana Residents agreed with this statement in a
<br />poll that the GLBT Community deserves the same civil rights protection as anyone else.
<br />He agrees with that, everyone does, but the ordinance before the Council tonight, is not
<br />the same civil rights as everyone else, its special rights.
<br />Dr. Charles Rice, Professor Emeritus, Notre Dame Law School, 59800 Tyholland Lane,
<br />Mishawaka, Indiana stated that he mailed on Saturday, to each member of the Council the
<br />article that he had in the South Bend Tribune on Friday. He rather not rehash that, but
<br />had two points to raise that may be overlooked. The first point is that contrary to
<br />statements that have come from members of this Council as well as others, this ordinance
<br />does not exempt churches. You have to be very clear about that.The existing ordinance
<br />gives to church schools a limited exception for hiring employees and for selecting
<br />students. Now, this new amendment in Section 127 e has a general provision which says
<br />that protections in this article against discriminatory practices with regard gender identity
<br />and sexual orientation shall not apply to decisions essentially of a church school or any
<br />activity of a church when they affect the mission, practice or belief of that church. Now,
<br />that is a later pronouncement and it is a general pronouncement, it’s a debatable question
<br />that which he stated he did not know the answer and that’s the problem with this
<br />ordinance. He stated that in 49 years as a lawyer, he can’t recall having read any
<br />legislative proposal that wasn’t more poorly drafted. This is extraordinarily vague and
<br />imprecise. It is entirely possibly that this section 127 e overrides the protections in 128 e
<br />and h. As to hiring employees and selecting students, he stated that he doesn’t know the
<br />answer to that and neither does the Council. That’s one of the problems with the
<br />ordinance. The second point he stated is what this ordinance does, is put into the hands
<br />of activists a weapon of intimidation. Which is extraordinary, others have described the
<br />differences between gender identity and sexual orientation on the one hand and the
<br />existing civil rights on the other hand, race, religion, disability and so on. The big
<br />difference is behavior; gender identity and sexual orientation are explicitly, and without
<br />limit key to behavior. Behavior is protected, explicitly and without limit. Now he stated
<br />that he has had experience and still do of being on the legal committees of several legal
<br />defense outfits, the American Center for Law and Justice, for example the Thomas Moore
<br />Law Center, Ann Arbor and a couple of others. He has been involved in these cases, and
<br />when Mr. Mangan talked about the attorney’s coming in, he knows what he is talking
<br />about. This thing provides for activists a weapon of intimidation where the process
<br />routinely time and time again, throughout the country has been for the ACLU to come in
<br />to town, to get a case and then present it to the school board, or the church or whatever it
<br />might be that has a religious issues and so on, and the choice that they present is this
<br />either do what we want, put this instruction in the school, take this out, put that down,
<br />take that down, whatever, do what we want or we sue and you got to hire a lawyer, and
<br />you got to pay our lawyer if you loose. This ordinance provides not only for damages
<br />and penalties, it provides in housing and employment cases, for attorney’s fees and it
<br />24
<br />
<br />
|