|
REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006
<br />policy is needed for those who have the hatred and violent nature in them towards this
<br />emotional issue are not allow to do that. As far as the ordinance, as one who has worked
<br />with citizens for community values to get the strip bars, and adult entertainment under
<br />control and eliminated in this City, we built the legislative district some of that is
<br />challenged in the Courts and hope that they will rule in our favor, we think it makes us a
<br />better and stronger city. However, he thinks that this ordinance while it is strong to an
<br />extent, also puts in it those amendments that legislative history that he has talked about
<br />and the language in here that protects those institutions those catholic organizations,
<br />those religious organizations, that they would not be extremely affected by this. He
<br />thinks its time for this City to take a step forward, he doesn’t think that this is going to
<br />have adverse effect to turn this into a gay San Francisco Parade, but he thinks that its
<br />going to be a matter of fairness for all its citizens that choose to live and accept the
<br />benefits and take up the challenges of living in the City of South Bend.
<br />Councilmember Dieter thanked everyone for their time and effort that has been put in.
<br />He appreciates both sides of the issue. Basically the time line sticks out, of the way this
<br />started through neighborhood meetings and then the Human Rights Commission then
<br />coming on a little bit afterwards. He stated that if this issue was a problem, that the
<br />Human Rights Commission could not handle it at that time, that they would have
<br />approached the Council before these meetings that Charlotte had. Another issue that
<br />stuck out is that the people from the Human Rights Commission that spoke on behalf of
<br />themselves and not the Commission, so that again points to something else. Also, he
<br />agree with Dr. Varner and that the enforceability and the information that he received
<br />from different people on that. He stated that Mr. Rice with his article, he was right on the
<br />money on that , if we do get to this point, he also agreed with Councilmember Kirsits,
<br />that the Council and everyone on the Council is opposed to discrimination of any kind.
<br />However, the way that the ordinance the way it stands now, it doesn’t address and is very
<br />vague on its definition. The choices that people make in their own lives is up to them.
<br />But what is being put out here tonight, he is not in agreement with. So, that is how he
<br />will be voting tonight.
<br />Councilmember Kuspa stated that this is a very important decision that the Council has to
<br />make. He has been off for a while, he stated that he had back surgery and while at home
<br />recuperating he has received numerous phone calls and information regarding the
<br />amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance, both pro and con on this issue. When you
<br />get right down to the ordinance and the definition of gender identity and sexual
<br />orientation, it is to vague. There are people saying that it is a religious issue, it’s a natural
<br />law issue, it is something that has to be lived with, something that needs a plan. It’s like
<br />everything else, if the Council tries to pin down a certain employer and tell them that they
<br />have to do this or they have to do that, he thinks its also against their rights also. He
<br />appreciates all the information he has received, the good, bad, pro, and con. The Council
<br />has to decide and live with that decision. It is a very difficult issue.
<br />Councilmember Rouse stated like his other colleagues, he would like thank everyone for
<br />participating in this process. Contrary, to what Ellen Anderson is saying, that 504 adult
<br />residence represent the feeling of the State of Indiana, we have had 850 e-mails and
<br />letters and he can tell you from 850 it is definitely against this ordinance. The e-mail’s
<br />and letters that this Council received was probably, 3-1 against the ordinance. He stated
<br />maybe we are strange residents in South Bend, or Hoosiers, but from what information
<br />that he had and he thinks that its more decisively from the 850 that it is 107 residents in
<br />the City of South Bend, and that is about 3-1 against this ordinance. But that is not really
<br />the issue with him, he took an oath of office that said that he would stand as a legislator
<br />for the City of South Bend. The oath reads as follows: “ I Timothy A. Rouse, do
<br />solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the
<br />Constitution of the State of Indiana and I will faithfully and impartially discharged the
<br />duties of the office of the Common Council Member at Large, according to the law and
<br />the best of my ability. He stated that he did not say in any sense say that he was going to
<br />be come a trailblazer and change the law and use this office to amend the constitution of
<br />the United States or the State of Indiana. And strictly, from a legislative perspective, he
<br />does not feel that there has been due diligence given to this ordinance. He stated that as a
<br />matter of fact, if he looks at the record of when it went into Council into committee and
<br />35
<br />
<br />
|