A voice of reason

Straighten up and gain some tolerance
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
11/24/08

Joe Sergio's Nov. 13 letter scolds Nancy Mascotte for her mantra of "intolerance" which was not directed toward the whole South Bend community, as Sergio indicates, but toward those citizens who do discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transvestite people.

In fact, his organization, Citizens for Community Values, has used deceptive language to cloud the issue of our citizens' human rights in South Bend. Its members sanitize the word "discrimination" and turn it into a catchy, duplicitous phrase: "no special rights."

Some citizens, I believe strongly, are not only intolerant of GLBTs, but acting unChrist-like. While on this Earth, Jesus chose to serve the poor, the outcasts and the marginalized in his Jewish society. Jesus never uttered a word of condemnation about homosexuality. We can presume that if gays were present and marginalized, they were a part of his community.

In our own times, gay people have come out of the closet into which most societies put them for centuries. Recent scientific studies find that, for a true homosexual, sexual orientation was not chosen by them but given to them by nature (and God?). I know that I did not choose my own heterosexuality.

I consider myself as a "straight for equality." Doing what is right can be simple. Easy. Straightforward.

Rev. Edward J. Ruetz
South Bend

More "love" from the opposition

11/13/2008

GLBT

Nancy Mascotte's letter on Oct. 7 should be a real eye-opener to those who haven't been following the efforts by the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual group to enact special rights for those professing to engage in these sexual behaviors.

After analyzing years of information, this group not only failed to demonstrate discrimination against GLBT, but they only evoked disagreement with their efforts.

During this time, Mascotte and others attacked many of our largest and most community-oriented employers, including Martin's Super Markets, Memorial Hopital and Wal-Mart, during these public hearings for, among other things, not allowing men to use women's bathrooms and visa versa. With the mantra of the South Bend community as being "intolerant," Mascotte and the GLBT leaders continue to demonstrate their hypocrisy by chanting "intolerance," while themselves demonstrating intolerance with those who dare to disagree with their conclusions.

Now they are demonizing leaders like Jay Dunlap, who lovingly oppose them. Those in the community who know Dunlap recognize him as an educated, thoughtful gentleman, father and husband. Mascotte's characterization is outright bizarre. The GLBT community should stop the vicious personal attacks and stop calling anyone who disagrees with them bigots, fanatics, extremists and hatemongers.

Joe Sergio
South Bend

Note: Joe Sergio is also the owner of First Response, a disaster restoration company located in South Bend.

If you're interested in reading the actual minutes from the hearing/public comments, the transcript is located on the Common Council website. The hearing on 29-06 starts on page 2.

Majority Rule, Minority Rights

Majority Rule, Minority Rights

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

· Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

· Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

· Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

· Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

· Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

· Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

· There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.

Discrimination

Discrimination
(SBT Voice of the People)
10/15/08

Jay Dunlap, who opposes an amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance to protect gay, leslian, bisexual and transgendered people (Voice, Sept. 25) is confused and misguided. The SouthBend Human Rights Commission does not deal with individuals who are disadvantaged; it deals with individuals who are discriminated against. Even a wealthy, well-educated man could be the target of discrimination.

Only members of Citizens for Community Values, such as Dunlap, dispute that there is discrimination against GLBT persons. The question is, are our representatives on the Common Council going to remedy the situation? Will they give GLBT persons the right to bring complaints of alleged discrimination to the HRC for investigation? Other Indiana cities permit this (e.g. Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Bloomington, Michigan City), and it works.

In his Viewpoint on Aug. 15, Don Wheeler stated that he didn't pay too much attention to the rhetoric of the opposition when the amendment was voted on two years ago, because the arguments against the legislation were factually incorrect or irrational. Dunlap's letter is a perfect example. The council must see through this obfuscation.

Discrimination is discrimination, even when it's called "loving opposition."

Elizabeth Karle
South Bend

A Democrat by any other name...

The following statement is included in the 2008 platform of the national Democratic Party (p. 51-52):

"A More Perfect Union We believe in the essential American ideal that we are not constrained by the circumstances of birth but can make of our lives what we will. Unfortunately, for too many, that ideal is not a reality. We have more work to do. Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in. We all have to do our part to lift up this country, and that means changing hearts and changing minds, and making sure that every American is treated equally under the law. "

And, in our own state, the 2008 Indiana Democratic Party platform states:

“The Indiana Democratic Party is proud of our long-standing commitment to and support for civil rights and equality. Our 2008 ticket makes history, creating the opportunity for the first African-American president and the first female governor. As the party of the people, we strongly oppose restriction of opportunity to Hoosiers based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or economic background.”

These ideals are what the Democratic Party, and - dare we say - many Republicans, aspire to. The Mayor gets this. The South Bend Common Council, which is comprised of 9 members (eight of whom claim to be Democrats) fell short of reaching the goal of equality by failing to pass an amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance to level the playing field for GLBT persons in July, 2006. Only Pfeifer, Kelly, Kirsits, and Puzzello stood firm.

No doubt this issue will come up again. When it does, will the Democrats be true to their party's ideals, or will they turn their backs on these aspirations? Will the eight (D)s be Democrats, and vote like Democrats...or will they behave like something else?

Chicago may get 'gay-friendly' high school

from CNN.com
By Mallory Simon

Story Highlights
High school would not be exclusively for gay students

Officials say harassment contributing to high dropout rates among gay students

39 states don't have laws against bullying based on sexual identity

Advocate: "We can continue to do nothing ... or we can save young people's lives"

(emphasis added)

(CNN) -- Public school officials in Chicago, Illinois, are recommending approval of a "gay-friendly" high school because harassment and violence are causing gay students to skip class and drop out at alarming rates.

School officials say the proposed school would offer a welcoming, harassment-free environment for gay students.

The School for Social Justice Pride Campus, which officials say will not be exclusive to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, is aimed at being safe and welcoming for any student looking for another school option, said Josh Edelman, executive officer in the Chicago Public Schools' Office of New Schools.

"It is not going to be a 'gay high school,' but yes, in a way, it is meant to target kids who feel they have been victims of bullying for their sexual orientation or perceived orientation," Edelman said.

Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan announced his recommendation Wednesday. Officials said Pride Campus would be separate physically but be attached administratively to the School for Social Justice.

School officials said the standards and curriculum for the school would be in line with other schools in the district. The school would also offer counseling for students, though because of federal laws, officials cannot ask students about their sexual orientation. The curriculum would not rely on, but would incorporate lessons about, sexual identity in history and literature classes, officials said.

"It's about creating another option for kids," Edelman said. "When it comes down to it, though, it is all about having a choice and providing high-quality options for students, whether they are gay or not."

The school could be a lifeline for students who are struggling for academic success.

Gay and lesbian students are three times more likely to miss school because they feel unsafe, according to a 2003 Chicago Public School District survey. And a study released Wednesday by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network showed similar trends across the country.

The national study, which the group says is the most comprehensive report ever on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students nationwide, found that 86.2 percent of those students reported being verbally harassed, 44.1 percent physically harassed and 22.1 percent physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation.

This harassment, the study concludes, has affected students' ability to achieve success in school, causing their grade-point level to be, on average, half a point lower than that of heterosexual students nationwide.

Dropout levels are higher among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students because of more frequent truancy, the study found. Almost 32 percent of those students missed a class because of feeling unsafe, compared with only 5.5 percent of heterosexual students nationwide, the study said.

Truancy and lower grades aren't the only repercussions of anti-gay sentiments in schools, said Kevin Jennings, the founder and executive director of GLSEN. He cited the killing of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old student shot by a classmate in Oxnard, California, in February after King asked to be his valentine.

Jennings said the repercussions of harassment alone underscore the need for Pride Campus.

"If we keep doing nothing, we are going to keep getting these horrifying levels of harassment, greater rates of skipping, not going to college and more tragic violence like the murder of Lawrence King," he said. "Those are our choices. We can continue to do nothing, and we know the results, or we can save young people's lives and offer them an education and a future."

A similar school in New York, the Harvey Milk High School in the East Village, was created because of similar fears.

The school, which had been around since 1985, serving gay and lesbian students, expanded to a "gay-themed" school for 100 students in 2003. The Pride Campus is expected to serve 600 students, school officials said.

Harvey Milk High School, like the Pride Campus, is open to all students regardless of sexual orientation. But unlike the proposed school in Chicago, Harvey Milk requires its attendees to be at risk of dropping out because of harassment.

Harvey Milk boasts a graduation rate of 95 percent of its students -- all of whom were at risk of or had dropped out -- well above the city average of 52 percent.

When the school opened its doors, protesters, led by anti-gay Kansas minister Fred Phelps, screamed at supporters gathered outside to repent for their "sodomite behavior."

Edelman said that while some concerns have been raised about Pride Campus at community meetings, officials have not heard any large-scale opposition.

One Chicago resident said at a meeting that he could not support the school because of his religious beliefs, Edelman said. Others told local media they didn't support the use of public money to create the school. Some thought that if gay students went to the Pride Campus, students in other schools would not learn to accept the gay community. Instead, they suggested, the focus should be working toward acceptance in all schools.

"Absolutely, we should work for [acceptance] across the board," said Jennings, the GLSEN executive director. "But it's not going to change overnight, and in the meantime, these kids aren't going to graduate."

Jennings said that GLSEN research shows acceptance among peers is helped by having a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender support group at school.

The most important factor, according to the GLSEN study, is the existence of a state law that protects students from harassment based on their sexual orientation.

Thirty-nine states, including Illinois and New York, do not have laws offering that specific protection, Jennings said citing the GLSEN study. Some have laws, but they don't specify on what basis the protections apply, which Jennings said was essentially as effective as having no law at all. California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin are the only states with specific sexual orientation protections for students.

The Chicago School Board will vote October 22 to approve the School for Social Justice Pride Campus in addition to 17 other proposed schools.

As far as Jennings is concerned, the school board's choice is an easy one.

"The choice they are making is not should we have this kind of school," he said. "The question is 'Are we going to do anything we can to get these kids an education?' And there's only one right answer -- yes."

It's past time for South Bend to amend human rights law

from Progressives, South Bend

Friday, August 15, 2008
It's past time for South Bend to amend human rights law
from The South Bend Tribune Viewpoint
published August 15, 2008

In the summer of 2006 an amendment to South Bend's Human Rights Ordinance was introduced in the South Bend Common Council. The concept of the original HRO was to protect citizens from discrimination in housing, the workplace, etc., but a clear gap in that protection had been identified. It was pointed out that there was no protection for citizens on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — real or perceived.

Like many people, I read about this with only passing interest. It seemed clear there was a problem, a clear solution had been proposed ... it seemed to be mostly just a housekeeping type of issue.

Imagine my astonishment when the amendment failed by one vote.

I had paid scant attention to the opposition's rhetoric. The claims were factually incorrect and the concerns seemed clearly based upon fear and dislike of people different than themselves. It seemed unnecessary to point out the irrationality.

I should have known better ... because these arguments have a familiar ring to them.

I grew up in Evanston, Ill., and in the late 1960s, it was a common practice that Realtors did not show homes in certain neighborhoods to people of color. By city ordinance (at any rate) this was not illegal. But it came to pass that many people in the community loathed the practice and dedicated themselves to ending it. My mother was one of those people.

She and I marched on several occasions, over many weeks, holding signs, chanting and singing for several miles each time. Each time we would rally at an African-American church at the beginning and another at the end. For a Caucasian boy approaching his teen years, it was quite an experience.

The rhetoric in opposition to our cause was typical of any case where certain people wish to retain institutionalized discrimination. Phrases like "we know what's best for these folks," and "it would be giving these folks special status, special rights" are merely code for a desire to dominate and oppress and — let's face it — they're inspired by hatred and fear.

So when I hear people say things such as, offering people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered equal protection under the law amounts to "special rights," I am not fooled. I've heard this stuff before.

And it's pretty frustrating that all that's asked for in the proposed amendment is a place to complain about ill treatment. That place doesn't even have to be created — the Human Rights Commission already exists.

And we don't have to guess whether there's ever cause to complain. The Chicago Tribune recently published two articles describing blatant job discrimination against transgendered people.

It recently came to light that a career justice department official was denied a position she was imminently qualified for, because the decision-makers thought she might be a lesbian. I have personally heard stories of employment and housing discrimination suffered by some of our GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered) citizens locally, as well.

I think, though, it's important to realize that this is not really about the GLBT community. What it is about is us as a community. We know that not all of our residents are protected equally. What matters is what we do about it. And, make no mistake, if we do nothing we are very much doing something. We are saying that in South Bend, Ind., if enough people are uncomfortable with some other people, it's OK to discriminate against those other people. We have the power to do that, and actually — as of now — we are doing that.

Well, I think we need to stop doing that and I hope you do, too. It's time for the South Bend Common Council to revisit this measure — and make it our law. It's time for citizens to make plain to their representatives as well, that it's time to do the responsible thing.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke many strong words, but the phrase I think of most often is: "There comes a time for all us, when silence is a betrayal."

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Don Wheeler lives in South Bend.

Meet one of the "loving opposition"

Human rights
from Voice of the People
South Bend Tribune
9/25/08

Don Wheeler supports changing South Bend's Human Rights Ordinance to cover gender identity and sexual orientation (Viewpoint, Aug. 15) as an extension of our society's civil rights gains. But he shows a sad disregard for the arguments of those of us who have successfully opposed this change. Wheeler openly states, "I had paid scant attention to the opposition's rhetoric."

As the opposition, we carefully analyzed whether the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered community needs protection against discrimination. Unlike blacks, Latinos and women, homosexuals as a group rank are not disadvantaged in educational attainment and annual income. GLBT individuals and interest groups boast strong influence in politics and especially the media: The New York Times has led the way in advocating the GLBT agenda.

Armed with facts, a majority of the South Bend Common Council voted not to change the ordinance. Despite the achievements of GLBT individuals, public issues of physical and psychological health remain: from suicide, to domestic violence, to distressing rates of anal cancer among gay men.

Looking at the reality, we lovingly oppose the GLBT agenda. The council made the right decision.

Jay Dunlap
South Bend

'Loving' opposition is full of hate

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
10/07/08

Jay Dunlap (Voice, Sept. 25) states in his letter opposing adding gender identity and sexual orientation to South Bend's Human Rights Ordinance that "As the opposition, we carefully analyzed whether the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered community needs protection against discrimination." He then goes on to make denigrating generalizations about the GLBT community. Isn't this one of the hallmarks of discrimination? My hope is that when others hear this "loving opposition" they will see it for what it is: The kind of hateful perceptions based on ignorance that are precisely what the GLBT members of our community need to be protected from.

Many people I speak with about this concern have no idea that a GLBT person living in South Bend can be refused service, fired from a position or refused housing simply because of their gender identity or sexual orientation or the perception that they may be GLBT, with no recourse. You can imagine where this would leave them if a person like Dunlap or another person from the "loving opposition" were in charge.

Please, South Bend, the 21st Century City, let's get it right the next time this issue comes before the Common Council.

Nancy Mascotte
South Bend

Pride, Community & AARP

Pride in the Park was a huge success! Not only did the Michiana GLBT community come together, but so many of our straight allies showed that they were up for celebrating a beautiful Saturday with us, as well. Thank you to all of the organizers!

A sense of "community" is an important element that helps people to know that they belong. In a similar vein, remember, it is from the grassroots level that we, the people, must speak truth to power. And don't for a moment think that those in power are not listening.

Sunday's South Bend Tribune (10/5/08) ran an AP piece entitled "Gay elders' challenges get a closer look." The gist of the story is that many older GLBT persons are single with no family (or family members from whom they are alienated). They are alone, scared, and fear discrimination. A group called SAGE (Service and Advocacy for GLBT Elders) is trying to change that in New York by partnering older GLBT individuals with volunteers who can not only assist them, but befriend them. Quoting the article:

"A watershed moment comes this month, when the AARP — the largest advocacy group for Americans over 50 — for the first time sponsors a major national conference focused on gay and lesbian aging." It is sponsored by SAGE.

AARP, the extremely powerful national lobbying group has heard the truth. The fact that AARP is actively engaging in the GLBT human rights movement is monumental. It shows just how mainstream GLBT issues have become. The trend is toward equality. This is a fact, a truth that must be recognized by the powers that be here in South Bend.

There are GLBT elders in the city of South Bend. Surely many of them fear discrimination, as well. It is up to the Common Council to amend the city's Human Rights Ordinance to include not only sexual orientation and gender identity, but age and veteran status, as well.

If we protect those who are most vulnerable, as well as those who so honorably serve our country, then someday "Pride in the Park" truly will be a "community" event - something of which we will all be proud.

Pride in the Park...........Oct 4th!

Monday, September 29, 2008
Pride in the Park......October 4th!
From the GLBT Resource Center of Michiana:

http://www.glbtmichiana.org/events.htm

We're excited to finally announce the date for our upcoming Pride in the Park! Come on out to Potawatomi Park on Saturday, October 4th for a day full of friends, food and fun!

This is going to be a massive event with performances by Nervous but Excited and LVNMUZIQ. Bradley Bogaert, the outrageous host of Truman's Touch of Class Revue, will be hosting Gay Bingo with help from his lovely assistants, Miss Curvette Spells and Marleana Martease! Mary Lou Wallner whose story was featured in the award-winning documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So" will be speaking about her life and her contributions to the film. There will be dozens of vendor, business and organization booths and a plethora of information about what is available in our community! Of course there will be plenty of food, and in an effort to make this event family-friendly there will be kid's games running all day!

You don't want to miss this event! Mark your calendars now! October 4 at Potawatomi Park in South Bend, IN. The party starts at 1pm and after Pride in the Park, head over to the Grille at IU South Bend for a special screening of "For the Bible Tells Me So" and a question and answer session with Mary Lou Wallner!

Bring your friends, partners, spouses, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, strangers you meet on the street... Everyone is welcome at this event, gay, lesbian, bi, trans, straight allies... We want to see you all! It's been a long time since we've hosted a big event, so come on out, and see what's going on!

See you at the park!

The plank in one's eye

Forgive me for getting religious on you here, but I hate it when conservatives claim they have a monopoly on God. It's just not true. It is possible to be a liberal and a person of faith, too.

People are starving. Countries are at war. Genocide still happens. Our environment is in danger. Homelessness is increasing. Diseases are spreading. The gap between the richest and the poorest is expanding. Health care is beyond the reach of many. The list goes on and on, yet "evangelical christian" groups focus on abortion, pornography, and gays. It's baffling...

It bothers me a lot when the Religious Right claims God and Jesus as their own - as if no one else has faith or spirituality. It takes a lot of pride to make such a presumption. I'm especially irked by those who tell others to repent and seek salvation. Perhaps they should tend to their own souls first.

When I was growing up, we were taught that people would know we were Christian by how we lived. I believe this meant following Christ's teachings. The essence of these teachings is incorporated in Matthew's Gospel, particularly from the Sermon on the Mount :

"'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: '"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

"Do not judge, or you, too will be judged;"

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

"Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself."

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."

And, of course, the Beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

Doesn't sound like the agenda of the Religious Right to me. In fact, when these groups actually hired advisors who advocated a social justice platform, those advisors were dismissed. I guess feeding the hungry just doesn't bring people out to vote like gay-bashing does.

Personally, I think there needs to be a new word in our vocabulary, for there are people who are "Christ-like," and then there are the "Christians." I know people from many religions - and some athiests, too - who are more "Christ-like" than many of the "Christians" we hear about today.

Now, I don't claim to be perfect, nor do I claim to be a most holy person. But, I am a work in progress and I am trying. I am living my faith to the best of my ability. I'm sure people on the Religious Right believe they are, too.

So why don't we all try to do better at living "Christ-like" lives according to His own words? We can help each other along the way without condemnation. We can make our world a better place if we solve so many of the REAL problems that affect people and our planet today.

Something tells me there would be more emphasis on the poor, hungry, meek, mourning, persecuted, and peacemakers if we focused on Christ's actual teachings rather than those of Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the like. Just a hunch...

It's past time for South Bend to amend human rights law

VIEWPOINT (South Bend Tribune)
8/15/08

By DON WHEELER

In the summer of 2006 an amendment to South Bend's Human Rights Ordinance was introduced in the South Bend Common Council. The concept of the original HRO was to protect citizens from discrimination in housing, the workplace, etc., but a clear gap in that protection had been identified. It was pointed out that there was no protection for citizens on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — real or perceived.

Like many people, I read about this with only passing interest. It seemed clear there was a problem, a clear solution had been proposed ... it seemed to be mostly just a housekeeping type of issue.

Imagine my astonishment when the amendment failed by one vote.

I had paid scant attention to the opposition's rhetoric. The claims were factually incorrect and the concerns seemed clearly based upon fear and dislike of people different than themselves. It seemed unnecessary to point out the irrationality.

I should have known better ... because these arguments have a familiar ring to them.

I grew up in Evanston, Ill., and in the late 1960s, it was a common practice that Realtors did not show homes in certain neighborhoods to people of color. By city ordinance (at any rate) this was not illegal. But it came to pass that many people in the community loathed the practice and dedicated themselves to ending it. My mother was one of those people.

She and I marched on several occasions, over many weeks, holding signs, chanting and singing for several miles each time. Each time we would rally at an African-American church at the beginning and another at the end. For a Caucasian boy approaching his teen years, it was quite an experience.

The rhetoric in opposition to our cause was typical of any case where certain people wish to retain institutionalized discrimination. Phrases like "we know what's best for these folks," and "it would be giving these folks special status, special rights" are merely code for a desire to dominate and oppress and — let's face it — they're inspired by hatred and fear.

So when I hear people say things such as, offering people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered equal protection under the law amounts to "special rights," I am not fooled. I've heard this stuff before.

And it's pretty frustrating that all that's asked for in the proposed amendment is a place to complain about ill treatment. That place doesn't even have to be created — the Human Rights Commission already exists.

And we don't have to guess whether there's ever cause to complain. The Chicago Tribune recently published two articles describing blatant job discrimination against transgendered people.

It recently came to light that a career justice department official was denied a position she was imminently qualified for, because the decision-makers thought she might be a lesbian. I have personally heard stories of employment and housing discrimination suffered by some of our GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered) citizens locally, as well.

I think, though, it's important to realize that this is not really about the GLBT community. What it is about is us as a community. We know that not all of our residents are protected equally. What matters is what we do about it. And, make no mistake, if we do nothing we are very much doing something. We are saying that in South Bend, Ind., if enough people are uncomfortable with some other people, it's OK to discriminate against those other people. We have the power to do that, and actually — as of now — we are doing that.

Well, I think we need to stop doing that and I hope you do, too. It's time for the South Bend Common Council to revisit this measure — and make it our law. It's time for citizens to make plain to their representatives as well, that it's time to do the responsible thing.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke many strong words, but the phrase I think of most often is: "There comes a time for all us, when silence is a betrayal."

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Don Wheeler lives in South Bend.

Richard Cohen, "ex-gay therapist" on CNN

One of the presentations that Patrick Mangan ("No Special Rights"/"Citizens for Community Values) made in opposition to amending our Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity, was the showing of a DVD called "It's Not Gay". Richard Cohen is one of the so-called experts in "ex-gay therapy" and is featured in "It's Not Gay".

What Patrick Mangan failed to mention as he was using Cohen as one of his experts was that Cohen was permanently expelled from the American Counseling Association (ACA) for violations of six ethical codes. Although the specific violations were not specified, they corresponded to ACA codes of conduct toward clients, such as avoiding dual relationships or fostering dependent counseling ties.

"Of particular note is that Cohen's violations are self-serving, as he is accused of violating standard ethics of protecting his client from dual relationships, marketing purposes and testimonials" - Joe Kort, psychotherapist and author of "10 Smart Things Gay Men Can Do to Improve Their Lives."

One survivor of "ex-gay therapy" had this to say about Cohen's so-called therapy:

Cohen relies on a common reparative therapy theory: A child who doesn't form a healthy bond with his or her same-sex parent develops an "unhealthy" sexuality.

"Cohen's approach is to utilize 'holding therapy' as a way of repairing the bond and help a person transition from homosexuality to their 'inherent' heterosexuality."

"I found this basic concept to be very damaging to me," he said. "I was always 'sick' or 'broken' or in some other way inadequate as a human being. Because therapy always focused on my father and his supposed absence and bad parenting, my relationship with him suffered." - Rick, Fredonia, N.Y.,(last name be withheld)

From from being an innocuous treatment, "ex-gay"therapy can, and does, cause great harm to many. Many survivors say they wasted years of their lives, spent thousands of dollars and suffered mental duress as a result of attempting sexual orientation conversion. Some victims even spoke of attempts at suicide.

Testimony of a "former homosexual"

Our opposition has always maintained that no amendment to our Human Rights Ordinance was necessary because anti-gay harassment just doesn't happen.

Here's a clip from a man who claims to have been cured of his homosexuality, describing what his own experience was growing up gay. Interestingly, he refers to himself as a "victim".



I understand that our opposition to amending the HRO has a great deal of difficulty in accepting the fact that this type of harassment does indeed exist. I thought maybe it would be more acceptable coming from the mouth of one of their own.

Homosexuality and the Bible...an invitation to learn

Hello Friends,

Our class (offered yearly or whenever we think we need it again!) on
Homosexuality and the Bible is this month--July, starting the 9th and
continuing every Wednesday in July from 7-9.

We'll serve refreshments (snack type foods). It's informal; a
couple of nights we'll show films, other nights we'll talk about
scripture, including the "clobber scriptures" so often used against
us, and we always welcome questions and discussions.

There's a lot of negativity out there, but we focus on the God of
love we have come to know, who welcomes us all!

You'd be welcomed if you're interested, or, if you know folks who
would find this helpful, we hope you'll pass this along to them.

Thanks so much!

Martha Carroll
Minister

The Bible and Homosexuality
A four week journey examing faith and sexual orientation

Southside Christian Church
1329 E Jackson Rd
South Bend

July 9: Your relationship with the Bible: Scriptural translation
and context
July 16: Screening of "In-Laws & Outlaws"
July 23: The Bible and the word of God: Biblical sexual ethics
July 30: Screening of "For the Bible Tells Me So"

Events begin at 7 p.m.; attend any or all classes.

For information or directions, call: 291.1156
email ssccdocsb@juno. com

We're located south of the by-pass and just south of Erskine Plaza
(formerly Scottsdale Mall). Go under the by pass, and turn left at
the first stop light. (Jackson Middle School is on the corner
there). Drive PAST the Southside Baptist Church. You'll see us just
past Farington Apts., on the left/north side of the street. Our
wooden sign out front reads Southside Christian Church, and has a red
chalice (our logo) included.

A sad example of why The Day of Silence is still necessary

As a follow up to our story on the attempted intimidation of (former) SB School Superintendent, Dr. Zimmerman, by Patrick Mangan (No Special Rights/CCV IN), we would like to point out why the Day of Silence is still necessary. Mr. Mangan believes that the greatest threat of violence against gays comes from other gays. Interestingly, the teen girl who was a victim was beaten simply for advocating for gay rights.

Hat tip to Indiana Equality for reporting on this.



From the Grand Rapids Press:

The cases will be handled in Allegan County Juvenile Court, where a hearing date will be set, he said. Each girl will face one count of aggravated assault, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in a juvenile detention center and a $1,000 fine.

Because the two alleged attackers are younger than 18, the FBI did not investigate potential hate crime violations.

The freshmen girls, who can be seen repeatedly punching the 14-year-old victim in a clip recorded on another student's digital camera Tuesday, said they did not agree with her advocacy for gay rights, police said.

I'd like to think that this is an isolated incident but you really have no idea how many straight people have expressed fear of supporting SBE because they fear possible repercussions.

The irony here is that we are often asked by straight people to protect them if they come out to support us. The fear and intimidation that people like Patrick Mangan use is a powerful tool and they make full use of it as often as they can.

Do as I say, not as I do....

Seems James Dobson of Focus on the Family is irked at Barak Obama. No surprise there. What's the problem this time? Obama gave a speech in June, 2006 to a liberal Christian group (yes, they do exist) in which he stated:

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?"

On Tuesday, Dobson responded to these 2 year old comments. According to CNN, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

But wait, aren't some of these passages the exact same ones that Focus on the Family and other evangelical groups cite to condemn homosexuals? You betcha.

Seems what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.

(To read the entire article, "Evangilist accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible," see: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html)

Gay brain, straight brain?

In opposing civil rights for GLBT individuals, anti-gay activists make a point of stressing their belief that homosexuality is a choice. Most gays, on the other hand, have an innate sense that they were born with a same-sex attraction. Scientists have differing opinions on this nature versus nurture argument, just as they do over the origin of most human characteristics.

An article in this week's Time magazine entitled "What the Gay Brain looks like" once again tips the scale in favor of homosexuality being a biological, not chosen, orientation.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html?cnn=yes

It seems that researchers studying brain scans of gay and straight men and women have found quite a few differences that lead them to believe that "gay" brains differ in many ways from "straight" brains. This specific study is based upon comparisons of the size of the two halves of the brain in different people. Obviously, the structure of one's brain is not a chosen attribute.

I find it quite interesting that the most vehement anti-gay activists who insist gays choose their orientation, when confronted, are hard-pressed to reveal when or why they "chose" to be straight. As more and more studies conclude that being gay is, in fact biological, and not a choice, these same anti-gay activists will have to find another tool in their bag of ignorance, fear, and bigotry to wield against GLBT persons, if they are to succeed in denying gays basic human rights.

Until that time comes, one thing I will take great comfort in is the thought that I am much better off with the size of my brain, than the size of theirs'.

Good work, if you can get it

How many of you know that Mr. Mangan's job is to uphold his view of morality? I mean, he apparently gets paid day in and day out, to judge people according to his view of what is right or wrong.

Mr. Mangan's current battle is in New Buffalo, opposing a "gentleman's club." Now, I'm not saying that a "gentleman's club" is necessarily good or bad, right or wrong. I'm just incredulous that this man travels around espousing his moral views for a living. Good work, if you can get it.

According to the South Bend Tribune, he is also collecting petitions. The thing is, he doesn't care where the petitions are from: "Mangan urged anyone at the meeting, no matter what their ZIP code, to fill out a petition as a statement to elected officials." (SBT 6/16/08)

This "take any signature you can get" tactic does not accurately express the views of the local population. It is the same tactic he and his "No Special Rights" group employed in South Bend in an effort to defeat the amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance. Mangan's group partnered with state and national groups to flood the Common Council with emails against the proposed change - this despite research by Indiana University that 79% of Hoosiers favor equal rights for gays.

I applaud those members of the South Bend Common Council who paid attention to the origin of their emails and letters. Sure, some council members used email statistics as an excuse for their "no" votes. But really, for all of their efforts, I don't think Mr. Mangan's group had any influence on the Council members' opinions. Minds were made up early and prejudices were revealed.

So, if someone like Mr. Sergio wants to pay Mr. Mangan to traverse Michiana spouting off like a geyser, I suppose he has a right to spend his money that way. Maybe they believe they are earning brownie points in heaven? As for me, I'm going to keep my day job.

Who, then, is the professional activist with an almighty agenda?

Voices, once silenced, can now be heard

The following are statements made by straight college students who participated in the 2008 "Day of Silence".

"As the day went on I began to understand how awful it must feel to want to say something but feel like you were not allowed to. I can't imagine what it must feel like to not be able to say anything because you were afraid of what others would think of you."


"This day of silence showed me how lonely being silenced is. You have no one to talk to and share your thoughts and feelings. It is very debilitating. There are so many obstacles when you are silenced."


"Staying silent made the day drag by. Interactions with others are what make us human. Interactions also serve as therapy in a way; if you are having a bad day, one of your friends may be able to say the perfect thing to make you feel better. When someone is silenced about their sexuality, this chance is lost because no one knows who they really are, therefore how would someone know how to make them feel better?"


"Participating in this day made me realize that people that experience being silenced must feel very alone and left out. They cannot take part in forming everyday relationships with the people around them because they are limited as to what they can say about themselves and their personal life."


"It was humbling not to be heard, especially when waiting in line or in class. For me, it shone a lot of light on just how hard it is to simply exist when everyone around you is not hearing anything you say, or ignoring you presence."


"I think this event was eye opening to everyone, whether they choose to speak or choose to be silent. We are all part of the same community and ignoring a group can be hurtful to our growth as a whole. Alienating groups does not make a society stronger; in fact, it makes it weaker, because it creates tension. This unhealthy behavior practiced by individuals and governments alike is perpetuating violence and discrimination, two things most people can agree on we need less of, not more."

Anti-gay groups fail....miserably! Record number particiapte in DoS!

We've looked at how our own local opposition attempted to intimidate our own School Superintendent into cancelling this years Day of Silence at Riley HS.

SBe-news only addressed the local attempts made. This same type of coordinated action ocurred all across the nation, using the same type of misinformation.

So, with all of the resources that went into trying to stop an event simply designed to bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools, what was the result of all of their effort?

They failed........miserabley. Not only did they fail, but a record number of students participated this year.

Read the complete story here.

"Citizens for Community Values" attempted to intimidate SB Schools Superintendent (Part 2)

Hat Tip to Progressives, South Bend

In a letter to Superintendent Zimmerman dated April 17th, 2006, CCV's Patrick Mangan made a blatant attempt to intimidate the Superintendent of the South Bend Schools into the cancellation of Riley High School's participation in the 2008 Day of Silence. We're not sure why the date on the letter is 2 years off since it clearly references this years event.

South Bend Equality would like to take the opportunity to challenge the information presented as fact by Mr. Mangan.

Mr. Mangan refers to this event as "pro-homosexual"

In fact, the real purpose is this "The National Day of Silence brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. This year’s event was held in memory of Lawrence King, a California 8th-grader who was shot [in his school computer lab] and killed in February by a classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender expression."

Mr. Mangan states that "your participation will be used by homosexual activists to promote the homosexual agenda to school aged children".

Going back to the statement in regard to the real purpose of this event, there is no attempt to promote any kind of "homosexual agenda" but to simply try to bring an end to the name-calling, bullying and harassment of those who are GLBT, or perceived as such.

Mr. Mangan accuses Dr. Zimmerman of weighing into the "culture wars" and taking up the "homosexual cause"

It seems the only ones wanting to turn this into a culture war are those who want to turn a blind eye to the name-calling, bullying and harassment that occurs on a daily basis. All students deserve to be safe at school and to have an equal opportunity to learn.

Mr. Mangan suggests that Dr. Zimmerman failed to realize "the potential legal and public health and safety consequences for your school system, students, teachers and parents".

While we commend Mr. Mangan for not leaving anyone out of this veiled threat, it seems to be a statement lacking any substance. There are no legal cases referenced and no credible sources given for his opinion to be based on. While Mr. Mangan appears to be short on credible sources, we are not. Here's what the APA has to say about the issue.

"There is growing recognition that social prejudice and discrimination against lesbians and gay men take a cumulative toll on their well-being. Within lesbian and gay populations, those who more frequently feel stigmatized or discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, who feel compelled to conceal their homosexuality, or who are prevented from affiliating with other lesbian or gay individuals tend to report more frequent stress and other mental health concerns."

Perhaps Dr. Zimmerman has a better grasp of the facts than Mr. Mangan and chose the course of action which would promote the safety of all of his students.

Mr. Mangan addresses the issue of adolescents questioning their sexuality and finding, in time, that they are heterosexual.

This is nothing new. The process of moving through adolescence into adulthood involves question their identity in every area of their lives. The fact that the majority of these adolescents decide they are heterosexual only shows that the process is not damaging, but one of growth. In fact, we would say that Mr. Mangan's statement only shows that the process is working.

Mr. Mangan claims that, "because of the harms associated with this dangerous destructive lifestyle, schools that promote homosexuality to kids may be subject to legal liability if those children participate in dangerous sexual practices and contract deadly diseases such as AIDS or develop various psychological problems associated with homosexuality."

There's so much misinformation in that statement, it's hard to even know where to start. Once again, the threat contains no legal case reference to back up such claims of liability. IN already has an Age of Consent law. Violations of that law already have legal consequences attached to them. Unless school property, faculty or related personnel would be involved, we see no legal liability for the school system, especially since the true purpose of this event has already been addressed and it is not the promotion of homosexuality. If we use Mr. Mangan's reasoning, the school system could also be held responsible for the consequences of a heterosexual student having unprotected sex if the school failed to teach responsible sexual behavior. The idea is ludicrous.

Once again, the claims of homosexuality being dangerous, destructive or that they have anything to do with mental illness have been debunked long ago by every credible medical and psychological association.

"Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. For more than 25 years, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation."

The consequences of discrimination, harassment and bullying against GLBT individuals (or those perceived as such) has been shown to cause problems such as Mr. Mangan addresses.

Mr. Mangan also seems greatly concerned about those with "traditional values" having their civil rights compromised.

Interestingly, in one of the most publicized protests against the 2008 Day of Silence, the "No Special Rights" website proudly posts an email from Mission America (one of the groups behind the opposition to DoS) that ends with this:

Junior Landon Wilson, wearing an Uncle Sam costume, joined members of the Mount Si Student Conservative Club in handing out red, white and blue ribbons.

He said the group was offering what it considered to be American values as an alternative to an endorsement of the Day of Silence. . .

Seems to us that this school allowed both sides an opportunity to express themselves. It's equally interesting that, while claims have been made that students remaining silent for one day is disruptive to the learning environment, neither Mr. Mangan, nor Mission America seems to find a student dressed as Uncle Sam and handing out ribbons, the least bit disruptive.

For more information on the day at Mount Si HS, here's the view from a blogger who was an eye witness to the protest that day.

In addressing Mr. Mangan's concern as to

"how poorly gays treat ex-gays"

We're not even sure how this is relevant to the Dos but perhaps Mr. Mangan should read current information on this issue. The article posted may have come from a gay publication but it gives both sides ample coverage of their positions. That post also contains links to other information regarding the reality of the ex-gay movement from credible sources.

Without a doubt, the most outrageous statement Mr. Mangan makes is this:

"Of course we oppose all bullying and believe that everyone should be treated with respect."

While we appreciate Mr. Mangan's emphasis by using bold font, it's hard to see where respect is anywhere to be found in any of the previous statements Mr. Mangan has made about homosexuals. If we are to believe what he has stated about us, we are no more than violent, mentally ill, diseased people who wish to promote a so-called dangerous destructive lifestyle to young, vulnerable children and then use them to promote our so-called homosexual agenda.

We would offer that Mr. Mangan himself has made the best case for why the Day of Silence is still a necessary event. We can only wish for the day when respect and a safe learning environment for all students is a reality. Until that time, perhaps Mr. Mangan would do best to stop making unsubstantiated statements (such as claiming that gays are more responsible for acts of violence against other gays) and look at actual facts.

"Citizens for Community Values" attempted to intimidate SB Schools Superintendent (Part 1)

Hat Tip to Progressives, South Bend

First, some history:

On April 25th, thousands of students across our nation made a choice to remain silent for the day. The National Day of Silence is an annual event which "brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools". This year, it was held in memory of Lawrence King, a 15 year old who was shot in the head, while sitting in his schools computer lab, by a 14 yr old classmate.

The American Family Asociation had this to say about the event:

By remaining silent, the intent of the pro-homosexual students is to disrupt the classes while promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). DOS leads the students to believe that every person who identifies as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser is a victim of ongoing, unrelenting harassment and hate.

They seem to miss the "straight" in Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, just as they make a habit of of missing the "straight" in Gay Straight Aliiances (GSAs). The DoS is not about a group of "homosexual activists" but rather involves people from across the spectrum who care that people are being hurt and want to do something to stop it.

Also, note the misinformation of referring to transgendered persons as "cross-dressers". It's an often used tactic to diminish them as human beings and attempt to define them based on behavior only. Regardless of how a transgendered person is dressed, they are still transgendered.

If you check their FAQ page on the event, while acknowledging that sometimes this

"unrelenting harassment and discrimination" does occur, they claim that "this event is an overwhelming exaggeration in an attempt to manipualte our kids' natural sympathies".

Sadly, the fact that they are aware of the murder of a 15 yr old student in a classroom is characterized a "shameless exploitation". While they blame everyone else for this boys tragic death, they fail to see that, by their actions in opposition to DoS, they are failing thousands of kids who do indeed face daily harassment and discrimination.

And if you really want to know how these folks feel about the GLBT community and the safety of our kids:

What follows is a sample letter for parents to send to your child's school, if you decide to announce in advance that you will be removing your child on the Day of Silence.

This is quite tactfully worded. You may choose to give the school an even stronger message---that you think homosexuality should never have a voice in a responsible school setting, and can only foment dissent and confusion in the learning environment.

Can gays, "ex-gays" find common ground?

PlanetOut News
Mon May 12

SUMMARY: In the small hothouse world where "ex-gays" face off with "ex-gay" survivors (sometimes called ex-"ex-gays"), changes are afoot. Emphasis added

Few who follow the culture wars will forget the summer of Zach. In 2005, the parents of Zach Stark, a 16-year-old Tennessean, forced him to go to Refuge -- a two-week day camp run by the Christian group Love in Action, which aims to help people leave the gay life behind them.

But before Zach left, he blogged about it unhappily on his MySpace page. His writings spread like wildfire among his friends, caused international outrage and led to protests outside the Memphis camp demanding that Zach and other teens not be enrolled there against their will.

The uproar brought new attention to so-called "ex-gay" Christian ministries that promise to deliver people from same-sex behavior or desires -- ministries that have existed at least as long as their umbrella group, Exodus International, which was founded in 1976.

Zach's story also highlighted the little-known debate between proponents of "ex-gay" programs and so-called survivors of such programs, who said that they were not only scams but psychologically harmful to those who went through them.

Three years later, Zach is in college, has accepted his gayness and appears in "This Is What Love in Action Looks Like," a new documentary about the controversy." And in the small hothouse world where "ex-gays" face off with "ex-gay" survivors (sometimes called ex-"ex-gays"), changes are afoot. The survivors movement has grown to challenge the claims of "ex-gay" ministries. And Exodus -- an organization that encompasses more than 120 ministries in the United States and Canada and is linked with 150 more affiliated ministries in 17 countries -- has modified both its language and its focus in ways suggesting that even though it is far from disbanding, it is sensitive to criticism.

Could the two sides of this heated issue be merging? Not quite yet. But as I listened to the often heartbreaking stories of both "ex-gay" and "ex-gay" survivors, I realized that their efforts to reconcile gay feelings with their conservative Christian values and near-literal understanding of the Bible created a stronger bond with one another than with much of the rest of gay culture. As Peterson Toscano, a leader on the survivors side, put it, "We're a ship of fools all together."

So what's really changed since the world read Zach's blog? For one thing, the doings of "ex-gay" ministries are more carefully monitored, as evidenced by a recent Southern Poverty Law Center report, "Straight Like Me," and the website ExGayWatch.com, founded in 2002. David Roberts, one of the site's authors, says its primary mission is "keeping an eye on what ["ex-gay" ministries] say and do in public," and on "their relations with political groups."

For more than a year, the website BeyondExGay.com has been a virtual gathering point for "ex-gay" survivors, many of whom now picket "ex-gay" ministries events and conferences and attempt to share their stories with attendees. Beyond Ex-Gay also holds conferences of its own.

"Our primary goal is being a support group for 'ex-gay' survivors," says Toscano. Like Christine Bakke, who runs the group with him, he attended "ex-gay" ministries for years before finally accepting his gayness. "Our secondary goal is to talk about the harm of reparative therapy in 'ex-gay' ministries."

Toscano and Bakke say BeyondExGay.com has had more than 100,000 visitors in less than a year, and they're proud of their accomplishments. Last summer, they sat down with three Exodus leaders to air views over an informal dinner during Exodus' annual Freedom Conference in Irvine, Calif. The meeting was well-timed since just two days earlier three former Exodus leaders (all now comfortably gay) publicly apologized at the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center for any harm they'd caused. Three Australian former Exodus leaders soon added their names to the public apology.

In late February in Memphis, Beyond Ex-Gay picketed Love Won Out -- an "ex-gay" ministry sponsored by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family that has Exodus speakers at its conferences. Members of Beyond Ex-Gay held signs that read "christian & gay, 'change' at what price?" and, addressing the dismayed parents that the conference draws, "we know you love your kids." Beyond Ex-Gay later presented Love Won Out leaders with framed art collages they'd made illustrating the pain of going through ex-gay programs.

"It's about people starting to say, 'This has done me more harm than good,'" says Bakke, adding that, because Beyond Ex-Gay has published a growing chorus of such stories, it's shaken up the usual talk-show paradigm.

"Before, they'd have [prominent ex-"ex-gay"] Wayne Besen saying 'These programs don't work' and Alan [Chambers, who heads Exodus] saying they do," says Toscano. Bakke adds, "What got lost was the actual people who were doing [the "ex-gay" ministries]. It's like a kid in a custody battle. We're finally stepping forward, serving as a witness and a warning.

In part because of their actions, Toscano and Bakke say that Exodus has been changing. They point to a June 2007 story in the Los Angeles Times in which Chambers said he wasn't sure he'd ever met someone who was completely "ex-gay." Chambers also admitted that after years of heterosexual marriage he still struggled with feelings of gay desire and that "by no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete."

A few years ago, in a study Exodus commissioned of about 100 people in "ex-gay" programs, only about 5 percent experienced what the study called "conversion" to heterosexuality -- but the study also counted as "change" the larger percentage who reported they managed to abstain from gay sex, if not to overcome gay feelings.

Says Toscano: "They've lost some of the power of their message because they're saying change isn't really possible. So people are saying, 'Why try?'"

Chambers counters, "That's a mischaracterization of what we're saying. We're not saying change isn't possible. We're just being more honest about what change truly is and isn't."

Another major change cited by Beyond Ex-Gay is undisputed. Last year, Exodus let go of the lobbyist it had briefly hired to work on Capitol Hill against inclusion of gays in the (currently stalled) hate-crimes bill, on the argument that since being gay was not a fixed thing, it didn't deserve protection alongside traits like race or gender. Says Toscano: "We'd said to them, 'We don't understand why Exodus is involved in politics. Why are you trying to deny us the rights we could have that could make our lives easier?"

In an interview with Ex-Gay Watch (yes, the two "sides" are very much in touch), Chambers tried to explain the move away from lobbying: "I felt . . . conflicted . . . that we might be alienating people that simply wouldn't call us for help because of the perception that we were becoming a partisan and political organization rather than a ministry for all."

However, Chambers says he'll remain a member of the Arlington Group, a powerful consortium of conservative political organizations, including Focus on the Family. Does Exodus receive money from Focus? No, according to Chambers, although he would not name which, if any, other large groups give Exodus money -- and as a nonprofit, the group does not have to list such donors on its tax forms. What's more, he said, though Exodus' formal lobbying was over, "if we have an opportunity to share our stories with people on Capitol Hill, we're going to." Toscano counters that Beyond Ex-Gay does no formal lobbying and critiques Exodus's stance: "If they think [that's] not political work, they're deceiving themselves and need to be challenged on it."

Yet another major change in the "ex-gay" world: Last summer Love in Action closed the controversial teen Refuge camp where Stark had been sent. The ministry now runs an intensive four-day program for kids and parents that is focused more on getting them to communicate better than on making the kids straight, according to John Smid, Love in Action's longtime but departing leader. "Some of the kids will say, 'I'm not going to pursue change, but, boy, my relationship with my parents is a lot better,'" he says.

There are other signs that these two worlds, the very same until that moment when some make peace with their gayness and others renounce it, are coming closer. "We're two parts of the same island," says Toscano -- an image that is reinforced by the Gay Christian Network (GayChristian.net).

Founded in 2001, Gay Christian Network has found an ingenious way of bridging the divide between "ex-gay" and ex-"ex-gay" and putting the focus on spiritual matters: It lets participants choose to belong to what's called Side A -- "those who are in gay relationships or hope to be someday" -- or Side B, "those who view their same-sex attractions as a temptation and strive to live celibate lives."

Says Wendy Gritter, the straight, married leader of New Directions, a 23-year-old Exodus-affiliated ministry in Toronto: "It's a powerful message to a world that's so flipping divided."

Gritter doesn't view gay relationships as "the perfection of God's creative intent" any more than most straight relationships, even marriage. But when conservative Christians come to her tormented with gay feelings, her goal, she says, is to see them "at peace, living consistently with their beliefs and values."

And if they decide that being gay is OK with God? "It's not our role . . . to convince them to believe what we believe," Gritter points out. "We wouldn't break off our relationship and say, 'Now that you've embraced your sexuality as a gift from God, we can't relate to you,' but rather 'Hey, we may have some areas where we agree to disagree, but we want to hear how you're growing in your faith and how we can continue to love and serve you.'"

But doesn't that make her ministry almost, well, gay-affirming? Gritter sees the blurriness, almost seems to welcome it, acknowledging that she's the product of Canada, where Christian culture is far less politically engaged than in the United States.

"Why wouldn't a non-Christian gay person, someone who doesn't have a Scripture-informed view of sexual ethics, seek a lifetime [same-sex] partner?" she asks. "It's a no-brainer." In many ways, as warmly as she speaks of Chambers, she seems a hairbreadth from severing her Exodus ties. But she stays, she says, because "I have hope for effective future ministry for Exodus, and I hope to have input in that." Chambers says that he and Gritter are "huge fans of one another" and that Exodus has no plans of cutting ties with her.

Gritter cites a prominent study last fall by the Barna Research Group, which found that an overwhelming majority of young Americans ages 16 to 29 described Christianity as being, among other things, judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. Because of such perceptions, she says, "I think [Exodus] is going to face a sense of crisis of which path to take, one aligned with the Christian right or one that moves toward a singular focus on mission and ministry."

Here Chambers disagrees. "What will be increasingly true and apparent," he says, "is that you can't pin us down and stick us in a box."

A personal note: Starting this story, I wanted to stick "ex-gay" in a box. Reading the FAQs on the Exodus website -- "Is there a connection between homosexuality and predatory behavior, like pedophilia?" -- it was hard not to feel enraged. But while talking to Chambers, Smid and Melissa Fryrear, an "ex-gay" who heads up Love Won Out, I found myself tearing up at their tales of torment, depression and drug and alcohol abuse -- just as I did while hearing remarkably similar stories from Toscano and Bakke. It was particularly painful to listen to Fryrear recall how she used to punch concrete walls and cut herself, even though I was skeptical when she said therapy led her to link her lesbian feelings to having been sexually abused by a man as a child. She couldn't remember the man, nor when or where it happened.

Chambers, Fryrear and Smid had all at one point led gay lives, and their mixed feelings about their former lives were palpable. Chambers called the last two years of high school, when he started having a gay social life, "probably the best time in my life . . . I had the most exciting, great friends . . . The music takes me back instantly . . . I loved Depeche Mode." Fryrear and her live-in girlfriend went back to church together and stayed a couple for nearly two more years before she transitioned into her "ex-gay" life, which now includes dating a man. Chambers even avows that if an early gay relationship had worked out, "my life could've been radically different . . . . It's not that I don't believe I could have lived a happy gay life; it's that I thought there was more, and I found out there was."

Chambers and his wife of 10 years are now raising two adopted children.

Writing this story, I sensed a yearning on each side of the divide to be closer to the other. Karen Keen, a California "ex-gay," wrote on her blog about attending Beyond Ex-Gay's survivor conference: "I realize I was drawn [there] because I love these people. In some impossible way I long for camaraderie and unity with ex-'ex-gays' with whom I have shared so many of the same life struggles and pain. Yet at the end of the day our roads lead us apart, and I wish it wasn't so. I leave the Survivor Conference knowing it will be my last ex-'ex-gay' conference. I feel an ache in my heart -- the kind of sadness that comes when breaking up with a lover."

In one of my last interviews, I felt a bit of that ache myself. I'd asked John Smid, 54, who's not only married with kids but has grandkids now too, what perceptions of his work he most resented. "The assumption that I hate people who are involved in homosexuality," he said, "that I've turned my back on them. That's not true." He also hated media reports that Love in Action said it could "pray away the gay." He noted, "The headlines are always about changing homosexuality, and I say that we've never said that."

But why couldn't people be gay and Christian? "If you have a conviction that's acceptable, then that's between you and the Lord," he said. "Go find a gay-affirming church. That's up to you. There are plenty out there."

I laid down my reporter's notebook (metaphorically -- we were on the phone). Smid was funny and thoughtful and affable. I told him that I'd like to be his friend, that as a comfortable, happy gay man raised Catholic but now more inclined toward a broadly spiritual liberal humanism, I'd like to meet for coffee and discuss these issues more. And I said I truly had no interest in changing him. Could he say the same thing?

He paused. "No. To be honest." We both laughed. I was both moved and a bit shocked by his candor. "Christians believe there is one truth and one good way -- Jesus Christ," he stated. "A lot of people think that's arrogant, but it's the truth.

"Why would I say, 'Whatever, Tim, do what you want,' if I really cared about you and loved you as a friend?"

He reminded me that I'd opened up the subject -- that proselytizing was no longer the way of Exodus and the "ex-gay" movement. "If you want to ask where I think we've been wrong," he said, "it's been by trying to push an issue down somebody's throat."

I joked that he'd better mind his language. But he didn't laugh. "I won't go there," he said.

And I wouldn't either. (Tim Murphy, The Advocate)

Common Council member gets award from GLBT rights group

Tribune Staff Report
12/15/2007

SOUTH BEND -- South Bend Equality, a citizens group that advocates equal protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, presented an award to Common Council member Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd, during the council's privilege of the floor Monday night.

Pfeifer was one of the co-sponsors of a proposal to add language to the city's human rights ordinance that would protect GLBT people from discrimination and allow cases to be brought to the city's Human Rights Commission.

Catherine Pittman, a spokeswoman for South Bend Equality, said the group wanted to recognize Pfeifer not only for her work in the community but for her commitment to human rights.

"This is because Charlotte listens and cares deeply about all people," Pittman said. "Thank you, Charlotte, for all that you do. Everyone who lives, works and plays in the city of South Bend from the east side to the west side is better off because of you."

The council also adopted three resolutions Monday night to honor and recognize the work of Pfeifer and council members Erv Kuspa, D-6th, and Randy Kelly, D-3rd, as they finish their terms and leave the council. Three new council members will represent those districts starting in January.

HRO Commentary

Don Wheeler
writer/ editor
Progressives, South Bend
12/4/07

In the summer of 2006 an amendment to South Bend’s Human Rights Ordinance was introduced in the South Bend Common Council. The concept of the original HRO was to protect citizens from discrimination in housing, the workplace, etc., but a clear gap in that protection had been identified. It was pointed out that there was no protection for citizens on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity – real or perceived.

Like many people, I read about this with only passing interest. It seemed clear there was a problem, a clear solution had been proposed…it seemed to be mostly just a housekeeping type issue.

Imagine my astonishment when the amendment failed by one vote.

I had paid scant attention to the opposition’s rhetoric – the claims were factually incorrect and the concerns seemed clearly based upon fear and dislike of people different than themselves. It seemed unnecessary to point out the irrationality.

I should have known better… because these arguments have a familiar ring to them.

Read more...

Council to revisit ordinance on rights

Pfeifer brings defeated GLBT amendment back.

MARTI GOODLAD HELINE
Tribune Staff Writer
11/22/07

SOUTH BEND -- Charlotte Pfeifer hopes her last accomplishment as a South Bend Common Council member will be one that honors her colleague, Roland Kelly, who died in May.

Pfeifer, D-2nd, is asking the council to reconsider a controversial amendment to the human rights ordinance that would prohibit discrimination by sexual orientation and gender identity.

It is the same measure, sponsored by Kelly, D-3rd, and Pfeifer, that was defeated by the council 5-4 in July 2006 after much debate.
"We came so close to passing it and doing the moral and decent thing," said Pfeifer, whose term expires at year's end. "I thought I'd give the council a chance to right the wrong they did last year."

She noted it was Kelly's "number one regret" when the amendment did not pass.

"It profoundly and deeply hurt Roland at the time," recalled Pfeifer, who added the late councilman did not believe in discriminating against anyone.

"If we really want to pay tribute to (Kelly) and respect him the way we say we do, we do not want the city to discriminate against anyone," Pfeifer added.

"It clearly was very important to him," Randy Kelly said of his father. "It was the one thing he mentioned in his retirement interview (with The Tribune) that he wanted to accomplish before the end of his term."

Roland Kelly died in May and his son is completing his term, which ends Dec. 31.

"I hear from everyone, everywhere how much appreciated he was, always standing up for the rights of everyone," added Randy Kelly.

"I am very much in favor of it," he said of the amendment.

First reading on Pfeifer's measure is set for Monday's council meeting, and she's asked for a public hearing Dec. 10.

"It's going to keep coming back up until it's resolved," said Catherine Pittman, a member of South Bend Equality, a diverse citizens group that believes people should not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity.

"There is a group of citizens in the community not protected from discrimination and a lot of individuals are concerned about it," Pittman said.

Patrick Mangan, executive director of Citizens for Community Values, said his group will strongly oppose the amendment again.

"We're still exactly in the same place," he said. "We are lovingly opposing the homosexuals as it is put forward by the ordinance.

"We believe anyone who really loves homosexuals will oppose their behavior," Mangan added, "and help them come out of homosexuality. The truth is it's a dangerous, addictive, deadly lifestyle."

Mangan expects stronger opposition to the proposal than in 2006, just because so many issues "are slippery slopes."

Many people, according to Pittman, believe it is wrong to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals because those issues are unrelated to their job or economic issues.

"Most think it's already illegal" to discriminate, she added.

Pfeifer is bringing the issue back up on the grounds there is new information to give the council.

The proposed amendment is the same as one passed in Indianapolis in 2005, Pfeifer said, and the same as the one the South Bend council defeated in 2006.

"I believe the opposition (last time) put an inappropriate spin on it," Pfeifer said. "This is nothing special, just basic human rights."

Pfeifer and Pittman each said the amendment really is about one simple issue: having the right to report discrimination to the Human Rights Commission and to have it investigated to see if the complaint has merit.

In Indianapolis, after two years with the ordinance, Pittman said there have been no lawsuits challenging it and no more than five reports of discrimination per year. Most were resolved with mediation.

"It's part of my responsibility as a human being to see everyone is treated with dignity and respect," Pfeifer said.

Mangan says, "There is no legitimate or legal basis for such an ordinance and there is no need for it."

From research, Mangan said he found, "There is no evidence of a trend of acts of discrimination here against the GLBT community."

He maintains most violence against homosexuals is from their partners, not from the general public.

Citing homosexuality as a behavior-based identity, Mangan does not see that in the same light for defining discrimination as a racial identity someone is born with.

Mangan sees problems over sexual preferences and gender identity not as discrimination, but of differing opinions.

"There is no constitutional right not to be disagreed with," Mangan said. "We need to have a better solution to manage unkindness."

Pittman said the proposed amendment is important to make a "community commitment to take care of people fairly."

"I just thought in the spirit of the holidays and good will toward men, I'd give the council a chance to step into the 21st century," Pfeifer said.

"If it passes, what a merry Christmas it would be. It is truly a Christ-like thing to do."

Gay rights group speaks at South Bend Common Council meeting

5-4 vote against amendments made two weeks ago

JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/25/06

SOUTH BEND -- Rhonda Redman told the Common Council that she would like to see discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people end in South Bend.

But since the council voted down a proposal to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the human rights ordinance, Redman, a member of South Bend Equality, said she will have to keep fighting for her rights.

South Bend Equality sponsored the proposal that would've prohibited discrimination against GLBT people in employment, housing, education and public accommodations in the city. The council voted against the amendments 5-4 on July 10.

Members of the group spoke during the council's privilege of the floor Monday night. South Bend Equality says it plans on continuing to bring stories of discrimination to the council since they have nowhere else to go. About 20 people were at the meeting, wearing South Bend Equality pins and stickers that said "Still Not Protected."

Mishawaka resident David Carter, who owns property in South Bend, said the council's decision on this issue is "egregious." Discrimination against gays in employment, housing and education is still happening as well as gay bashing in the city. Carter said he has a friend in South Bend who was severely beaten for being gay.

"Council members (Charlotte) Pfeifer, (Roland) Kelly, (Ann) Puzzello and (Al) Kirsits, your vote was just, proper and the right thing to do. I leave you with two words: Thank you," Carter said. "Council members (Derek) Dieter, (David) Varner, (Erv) Kuspa, (Timothy) Rouse and (Karen) White, no matter how you try to explain your vote, the fact is you voted in favor of wrongful discrimination against gay people.

"You have sent a message that it's OK to discriminate and sent a signal that it's OK to assault gay people. I leave you with three words: Shame on you."

Council President Rouse, D-at large, answered Carter's strong words immediately after Carter left the lectern.

"We need to make it clear that this body will not stand for personal attacks against anyone sitting here," Rouse said. "If that's what you intend to do, you need to cease and desist."

"It's not an attack, this is fact," Carter said from his seat.

Robert Holmer said when he discussed his support for the ordinance at his workplace, Wal-Mart, one of his co-workers became uncomfortable. The employee reported him to a manager and said Holmer seemed to have "gay tendencies." Holmer, who is heterosexual, said Wal-Mart protects employees from sexual orientation discrimination. But if he worked anywhere else in the city, Holmer said he could've lost his job because of his co-worker's complaint.

Redman thanked all of the council members for their hard work on the issue, particularly Pfeifer and Kelly for sponsoring the ordinance. As a child, her mother taught her that "anything that is worthwhile is worth fighting for," she said.

Redman said it's sad gays have to fight for the right to be treated fairly.

"But I would add too that if it takes a fight, then that's what my mom taught me to do. And that's what I will have to continue to do. So thank you, all of you, for all your hard work. I'd like to tell you that it's over," she said "But I'm afraid I don't think it is yet."

"Is there another (speaker)," Rouse asked looking into the audience in council chambers.

The question was met with silence, then Rouse slamming the gavel.
"Council is adjourned," he said.

Human rights amendment fails, 5-4 in South Bend

Council nixes sexual orientation, gender identity measure.

JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/11/06

SOUTH BEND -- It could've been a night for the Common Council to make history, said Council Member Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd.

Instead, after a four-hour hearing and vote, it ended in a 5-4 defeat of an amendment which would've added sexual orientation and gender identity to the city's anti-discrimination code.

The five council members who voted against the amendment were Derek Dieter, D-1st; David Varner, R-5th; Erv Kuspa, D-6th; Timothy Rouse, D-at large, and Karen White, D-at large. Voting in favor of the amendments were Pfeifer, Roland Kelly, D-3rd; Ann Puzzello, D-4th; and Al "Buddy" Kirsits, D-at large.

Following the vote, Catherine Pittman, a member of South Bend Equality, which fought for the bill's passage, said the group was disappointed but undeterred. The council could've made the choice to pass the amendments to allow gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons to bring their concerns to the Human Rights Commission. The group will continue to fight for GLBT civil rights in this community, Pittman said.

"We're going to keep coming to Common Council," Pittman said. "There's no other place to go. We're going to continue to bring our concerns here."

Before the vote, Pfeifer and Kelly said the research and dialogue for the amendments have taken about two years. The bill is about civil rights, not about the acceptance of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people, they said.

Puzzello said No Special Rights, a group opposed to the bill, has said repeatedly it is "lovingly opposed" to the legislation. But Puzzello said it doesn't make sense to oppose equality.

"We cannot lovingly oppose this right. It's discrimination and certainly has nothing to do with love," she said.

Kirsits agreed, and said although the majority of comments he received from the public were civil, he received a few that were violent and hateful.

"I certainly feel we need a public policy so that those who have the violence and hatred don't act on it," he said.

Varner said he felt the ordinance would create a protected class. Dieter said he felt the ordinance was shaky since there was no unified opinion on enforceability. The definition of sexual orientation is too broad, Kuspa said, and if passed could discriminate against those morally opposed to homosexuality.

Rouse repeated the oath of office he took as a council member, which he said didn't include making history or becoming a "trailblazer."

"I don't believe anyone is saying we support discrimination but there are a number of issues we still need to address," White said.

Council members exchanged strong words during the afternoon personnel and finance committee meeting.

Varner said the city should wait until something is done on a state or federal level.

"You're talking about sweeping it under the rug and forgetting about it," Kelly said.
"No, sir," Varner replied.

"You know as well as I do, David, the way the state and federal government operate," Kelly said. "We have to start somewhere and I think it's important that we start locally. ... It's important to me we make a statement about human rights."

Opposing views on proposed rights amendment

Amendment would protect rights of all

MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW
CHARLOTTE PFEIFER and ROLAND KELLY
7/9/06

Every now and then, ordinary people have the opportunity to do extraordinary things. The South Bend Common Council will have that opportunity on Monday.

That is the day that the council can vote to include sexual orientation and gender identity as a factor of diversity as a reason to report incidents of discrimination to the South Bend Human Rights Commission. The commission can then investigate to see if there is any legitimacy to the claim. As it stands presently, people cannot report incidents of discrimination based on those two factors.

This amendment will protect all people. The amendment will protect a heterosexual person against whom inappropriate advances are made by a gay person, as well as a gay person who is discriminated against based on who he or she is, or is perceived to be. This will cover the public arenas: education, employment, housing and public accommodations.

As a nation, as a state and as a community the majority of people do not support discrimination and they do support protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals.

Indiana municipalities have the authority to create and amend their civil rights ordinances pursuant to their police powers, the Indiana Constitution, the Indiana Code (Home Rule Statute), and the Indiana Civil Rights Statute. The South Bend Human Rights Commission is the local civil rights entity that has the charge to investigate and carry out the ordinance. Our council has the power to amend the human rights ordinance to allow the commission to investigate allegations of discrimination.

South Bend will join Indianapolis, Bloomington, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, West Lafayette, Michigan City and other Indiana communities.

It is not unusual for South Bend to step up for what is right. We had a Human Rights Commission before it was a federal law. We had an open container ordinance before the state had an open container law. We are not afraid to do the right thing.

A claim that there could be a lawsuit is not a good reason not to pass timely legislation. Any law can be challenged. The threat of challenge did not stop the Founding Fathers, it did not stop the civil rights workers, it did not stop the labor unions, it did not stop the suffragists and it should not stop the South Bend Common Council.

This has been a long and open process. In 2004, we had six meetings throughout the city that were attended by many, including the director and five different sitting commissioners of the Human Rights Commission.

In 2005, we had more discussions and the Human Rights Commission sent a letter to the council condemning discrimination and requesting that the council seek a remedy.

In 2006 we have had even more open, fair and balanced discussions among all parties.

We, Roland Kelly and Charlotte Pfeifer, are co-sponsoring bill 29-06 that will provide a remedy.

No one on the council has to sort out what or how he or she feels about homosexuality. Council members will only have to decide if they are against discrimination. We have added amendments that will protect religious organizations.

On Monday, the council will hear from the Human Rights Department's executive director about the process for filing a complaint, and we will hear about enforcement from the department whose responsibility it is to oversee enforcement, the city attorney. Hopefully, the South Bend Common Council will reach the decision that will benefit the entire community.

Roland Kelly, D-3rd District, and Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd District, are members of the South Bend Common Council.



Amendment is neither needed nor enforceable

MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW
TIMOTHY A. ROUSE
7/9/06

Bill No. 29-06, before the South Bend Common Council, was filed by Council Members Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd, and Roland Kelly, D-3rd. The public hearing on the proposed ordinance will be at 7 p.m. Monday in the Council Chambers.

This is an emotionally charged issue and many well-intentioned people on both sides are expressing their views. So that the public is aware of the guiding principles and standards in this area, I believe that I must address several issues.

The editorial mentioned a statewide poll released in May. The poll was commissioned by Indiana Equality, which notes on its Web site that it "is committed to full equality for all Indiana residents regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."

Indiana Equality teamed up with Ellen Ann Andersen, an associate professor of political science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, to conduct the survey. Andersen has written extensively on various aspects of gay rights and prepared the survey questions. She worked in consultation with Indiana University Center for Survey Research in conducting the survey. The survey polled only 504 adult Indiana residents from Nov. 11, 2005, to Dec. 27, 2005. While it is laudable that 79 percent of those polled agree that "gay/lesbian Hoosiers should have the same civil rights protections as others," the poll did not provide any information to those polled that current Indiana law does not authorize municipalities to legislate in the GLBT area.

All Indiana cities are specifically governed and restricted by the Indiana Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination "based solely on race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry." These seven categories are the only ones currently authorized by state law to be addressed by a local human rights commission. Before cities could add an area not currently authorized, the Indiana state law would have to be amended. Indiana's Home Rule authority does not enable a city to violate a state law.

I believe that this information should have been a part of the survey. I further believe that the survey questions should have been developed by a neutral person so that the survey would not be perceived as being biased in any way.

The second item in the editorial addresses Mayor Stephen Luecke's support of an ordinance addressing GLBT protections which would mandate compliance. Most of the proponents of the GLBT ordinance are focused on making sure that South Bend is seen as a "city that cares."

As chief executive officer of South Bend, Luecke could issue an executive order addressing GLBT city government employment policies. Such action would be similar to what the late Gov. Frank O'Bannon did in 2001 to prohibit "sexual orientation discrimination in public employment." It addressed Indiana's 35,000 state employees. That policy is reviewed annually and was reaffirmed by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson issued an executive order in 2004 prohibiting "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." Such mayoral executive actions are legal, and are not subject to the restraints and restrictions placed on city councils by the Indiana Civil Rights Act.

The Tribune favors a local ordinance which calls for voluntary compliance. Bill No. 29-06 calls for mandatory compliance and, if passed, calls for first time violators to be fined $1,500, with a fine of $2,500 for repeat violators.

The council is charged to conduct its due diligence requirements on all proposed legislation which comes before it. Due diligence requires us to review governing law, study relevant facts and data, and listen to our constituents. That is why I recommended that the bill be referred to the council's personnel and finance committee for review and recommendation, and committee public hearings. This was done.

I also recommended that the bill be referred to the South Bend Human Rights Commission for review and recommendation. This was not done.

I believe that since the South Bend Human Rights Commission was created by local ordinance and is charged with "working cooperatively with" the council, its input would be imperative. The commission's data on alleged GLBT discrimination would be relevant to our deliberations.

Copies of the commission's reports, documents and minutes when GLBT issues were discussed and debated would also be helpful. To date, the council has no such information, and does not know if any exists.

I advised, too, that the bill be referred to the city's Department of Administration and Finance for review and recommendation. This was not done. The city controller oversees South Bend's Human Resources and Human Rights offices, whose insights would be helpful with regard to whether the proposed ordinance would have any financial impact on the city. Since GLBT are not recognized by the federal or state legislatures, there would be no federal or state funding available. Such funds currently pay for much of the local human rights operations in our city. Would city tax dollars need to be earmarked if the local ordinance is passed? What would be the impact on wage contracts now in effect?

I also recommended that the written reports from the South Bend Human Rights Commission and the Department of Administration and Finance be distributed and that a public hearing before the council then be set. This was not done.

Very detailed legal memorandums prepared by the South Bend Human Rights Commission attorney and our own council attorney, each dated Dec. 2, 2005, highlighted several legal concerns with regard to the bill. I do not believe that these legal obstacles can be overcome.

The South Bend Common Council's mission statement provides that the council members are: "To make certain that our City government is always responsive to the needs of our residents and that the betterment of South Bend is always our highest priority." As an elected public official, I must adhere to the principles and language of the laws which govern municipalities. Although it may be tempting to legislate in areas which are popular, to do so would fly in the face of the state and federal laws.

There is no state or federal law which enables municipalities to pass an ordinance addressing GLBT. There has been no substantial and credible evidence entered into the record that there is GLBT discrimination occurring in South Bend. As a result there is no "compelling governmental interest to remedy discrimination" by creating a special class of individuals who would benefit from special rights.

There are other avenues which could be pursued, such as a mayoral executive order. There are several judicial rulings which have found that GLBT claims may be actionable under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act.

I recognize the good intentions of the proponents of the bill, as well as those who have voiced opposition. I sincerely believe that South Bend is composed of caring citizens and that they are entitled to know the facts. I hope that this brief summary will assist our community in analyzing the proposed legislation.

Timothy A. Rouse, D-At Large, is president of the South Bend Common Council.