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."
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
"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.
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.
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
Without a doubt, the most outrageous statement Mr. Mangan makes is this:
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.
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.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.
He said the group was offering what it considered to be American values as an alternative to an endorsement of the Day of Silence. . .
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:
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
And if you really want to know how these folks feel about the GLBT community and the safety of our kids:
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.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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
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)
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)
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Common Council member gets award from GLBT rights group
Tribune Staff Report12/15/2007
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...
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."
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."
Friday, May 9, 2008
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.
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."
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.
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.
South Bend rights amendment addressed
Human rights officials for other cities offer insights.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/6/06
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."
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/6/06
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."
Let's set record straight on proposed ordinance addition
MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW
RHONDA REDMAN and CATHERINE PITTMAN
7/5/06
In response to a great deal of irrelevant and misleading information presented by Patrick Mangan's group, South Bend Equality would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight and to remind people what the proposed amendment to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the human rights ordinance is really about.
The only thing that this ordinance changes is that it allows an individual who feels he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity to enter the offices of South Bend's Human Rights Commission and ask someone to consider his or her case. Today, because this amendment is not yet enacted, both gay and straight individuals have no one to ask for assistance if they feel that they are facing such discrimination. In a word, the proposed amendment is about fairness.
Discrimination against GLBT people (and those perceived as such) is present in our community and it is, at this time, legal. Currently, South Bend's Human Rights Commission has authority to investigate claims of discrimination based only on race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry and familial status. Amending the Human Rights Ordinance to add sexual orientation and gender identity would change that by giving the Human Rights Commission authority to investigate claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the specific areas of employment, housing, education and public accommodation.
Members of South Bend Equality appreciate and respect the diverse religious beliefs regarding this issue. We have, from the beginning, supported an exemption for faith-based organizations. This would include places of worship. Those who say that this amendment will force churches to hire GLBT individuals are incorrect. Religious organizations have always been exempt from much of the original human rights ordinance. For example, some churches limit the roles of women within their organizations. This is, and always has been, legal. The proposed amendment would not change that. Those who are currently exempt would continue to be exempt.
Although Mangan's group would have you believe that this proposed amendment would give "special rights" to GLBT individuals, the truth is that everyone would be protected from being treated unfairly because of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. We aren't asking for "special rights" for the GLBT community. Quite the opposite is true. Rather than giving "special rights" to any one group, this amendment would expand the rights of all citizens.
Mangan has noted that a study documenting local allegations of discrimination, which South Bend Equality had presented to the Common Council, has gone uninvestigated. The proposed amendment would remedy that by allowing the Human Rights Commission to fully investigate any claims of discrimination. The commission has a great deal of experience in not only investigating but also mediating such claims. It has 50 years of valued service to our community. Passing this amendment would provide the type of objective, impartial investigation that Mangan has said should be applied to the alleged cases of discrimination.
Mangan's group has tried to distract people from the central issues of discrimination and fairness by bringing up topics that have nothing to do with the proposed amendment. We will not be distracted. We will continue to work toward equality for all citizens. Mangan's group has tried to characterize the efforts of South Bend Equality as part of a "homosexual agenda." If we were asked to explain our agenda, this is what we would say:
We want South Bend to become a more welcoming place for everyone, a community of respect and acceptance, striving toward its goal of becoming a 21st century city.
Business leaders have already learned that embracing diversity and inclusion has a positive effect on their bottom line. According to the Human Rights Campaign's 2005 Corporate Equality Index, 5.6 million employees now work for the 101 companies receiving a perfect score for equality, indicating employment protection on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, among other indicators. That number is up from 690,000 employees from only 13 companies that received a perfect score in 2002. A total of 113 companies rated by the Corporate Equality Index have "gender identity or expression" protection in their nondiscrimination policies, up more than 90 percent since the 2004 report. Many of these inclusive companies are a part of our own South Bend neighborhoods.
A record 92 percent of the Fortune 500 companies, notably the most successful companies in the world, protect their employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact, all five of the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Indiana have such protection. In addition, our own state employment policy that was put in place by Gov. Frank O'Bannon states that "sexual orientation and gender identity shall not be a consideration in hiring, development, advancement and termination of civilian employees." Equality in the workforce is not only good for business, it has become a steadfast Hoosier value.
Currently, the federal government, the District of Columbia, and at least 26 states, 52 counties and 228 cities already have legislation, executive orders or policies that contain some form of equal protection for GLBT individuals. Included in that number are six Indiana cities. We are committed to helping South Bend become the seventh.
A recently released Indiana University poll found that an overwhelming 79 percent of Indiana residents believe that gay and lesbian Hoosiers should have the same civil rights protections as others. Acceptance of discrimination is quickly becoming a thing of the past all across our nation.
Stereotypes will never be able to accurately describe any group of individuals. Mangan's group has presented a stereotypical image of the GLBT community that is unrealistic and unfair. They have claimed that South Bend Equality is a gay activist group, but South Bend Equality is a large group that personifies diversity. It was born out of a discussion by two married women talking together on an AIDS walk. More citizens are joining us, and saying "We care about equality." We are men and women, young and old, gay and straight, individuals from a variety of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. Some of us are raising families and some are single. We are living proof that diversity enables a group not only to succeed, but to excel.
South Bend Equality is fully committed to helping to make South Bend a welcoming place where everyone is free to live their lives, raise their families and participate fully in our community without fear. We hope that you will stand with us in asking the South Bend Common Council to pass Bill 29-06 to add sexual orientation and gender identity to South Bend's human rights ordinance.
Rhonda Redman and Catherine Pittman are members of South Bend Equality. Group members Mary Porter, Robert Holmer and Astrid Henry also contributed to this viewpoint.
RHONDA REDMAN and CATHERINE PITTMAN
7/5/06
In response to a great deal of irrelevant and misleading information presented by Patrick Mangan's group, South Bend Equality would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight and to remind people what the proposed amendment to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the human rights ordinance is really about.
The only thing that this ordinance changes is that it allows an individual who feels he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity to enter the offices of South Bend's Human Rights Commission and ask someone to consider his or her case. Today, because this amendment is not yet enacted, both gay and straight individuals have no one to ask for assistance if they feel that they are facing such discrimination. In a word, the proposed amendment is about fairness.
Discrimination against GLBT people (and those perceived as such) is present in our community and it is, at this time, legal. Currently, South Bend's Human Rights Commission has authority to investigate claims of discrimination based only on race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry and familial status. Amending the Human Rights Ordinance to add sexual orientation and gender identity would change that by giving the Human Rights Commission authority to investigate claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the specific areas of employment, housing, education and public accommodation.
Members of South Bend Equality appreciate and respect the diverse religious beliefs regarding this issue. We have, from the beginning, supported an exemption for faith-based organizations. This would include places of worship. Those who say that this amendment will force churches to hire GLBT individuals are incorrect. Religious organizations have always been exempt from much of the original human rights ordinance. For example, some churches limit the roles of women within their organizations. This is, and always has been, legal. The proposed amendment would not change that. Those who are currently exempt would continue to be exempt.
Although Mangan's group would have you believe that this proposed amendment would give "special rights" to GLBT individuals, the truth is that everyone would be protected from being treated unfairly because of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. We aren't asking for "special rights" for the GLBT community. Quite the opposite is true. Rather than giving "special rights" to any one group, this amendment would expand the rights of all citizens.
Mangan has noted that a study documenting local allegations of discrimination, which South Bend Equality had presented to the Common Council, has gone uninvestigated. The proposed amendment would remedy that by allowing the Human Rights Commission to fully investigate any claims of discrimination. The commission has a great deal of experience in not only investigating but also mediating such claims. It has 50 years of valued service to our community. Passing this amendment would provide the type of objective, impartial investigation that Mangan has said should be applied to the alleged cases of discrimination.
Mangan's group has tried to distract people from the central issues of discrimination and fairness by bringing up topics that have nothing to do with the proposed amendment. We will not be distracted. We will continue to work toward equality for all citizens. Mangan's group has tried to characterize the efforts of South Bend Equality as part of a "homosexual agenda." If we were asked to explain our agenda, this is what we would say:
We want South Bend to become a more welcoming place for everyone, a community of respect and acceptance, striving toward its goal of becoming a 21st century city.
Business leaders have already learned that embracing diversity and inclusion has a positive effect on their bottom line. According to the Human Rights Campaign's 2005 Corporate Equality Index, 5.6 million employees now work for the 101 companies receiving a perfect score for equality, indicating employment protection on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, among other indicators. That number is up from 690,000 employees from only 13 companies that received a perfect score in 2002. A total of 113 companies rated by the Corporate Equality Index have "gender identity or expression" protection in their nondiscrimination policies, up more than 90 percent since the 2004 report. Many of these inclusive companies are a part of our own South Bend neighborhoods.
A record 92 percent of the Fortune 500 companies, notably the most successful companies in the world, protect their employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact, all five of the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Indiana have such protection. In addition, our own state employment policy that was put in place by Gov. Frank O'Bannon states that "sexual orientation and gender identity shall not be a consideration in hiring, development, advancement and termination of civilian employees." Equality in the workforce is not only good for business, it has become a steadfast Hoosier value.
Currently, the federal government, the District of Columbia, and at least 26 states, 52 counties and 228 cities already have legislation, executive orders or policies that contain some form of equal protection for GLBT individuals. Included in that number are six Indiana cities. We are committed to helping South Bend become the seventh.
A recently released Indiana University poll found that an overwhelming 79 percent of Indiana residents believe that gay and lesbian Hoosiers should have the same civil rights protections as others. Acceptance of discrimination is quickly becoming a thing of the past all across our nation.
Stereotypes will never be able to accurately describe any group of individuals. Mangan's group has presented a stereotypical image of the GLBT community that is unrealistic and unfair. They have claimed that South Bend Equality is a gay activist group, but South Bend Equality is a large group that personifies diversity. It was born out of a discussion by two married women talking together on an AIDS walk. More citizens are joining us, and saying "We care about equality." We are men and women, young and old, gay and straight, individuals from a variety of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. Some of us are raising families and some are single. We are living proof that diversity enables a group not only to succeed, but to excel.
South Bend Equality is fully committed to helping to make South Bend a welcoming place where everyone is free to live their lives, raise their families and participate fully in our community without fear. We hope that you will stand with us in asking the South Bend Common Council to pass Bill 29-06 to add sexual orientation and gender identity to South Bend's human rights ordinance.
Rhonda Redman and Catherine Pittman are members of South Bend Equality. Group members Mary Porter, Robert Holmer and Astrid Henry also contributed to this viewpoint.
Voices behind the battle for gay-rights protections in South Bend
Participants describe why they believe gay-rights amendments necessary.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/03/06
Three of the following stories were included in South Bend Equality's study on discrimination.
SOUTH BEND -- Robert Seifert says he knew what discrimination looked like.
Seifert saw many things after he graduated from Central High School and left for college. In the 1970s, he found himself in San Francisco. An advocate for the Bay Area Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression, he aided those who faced discrimination.
Years later, when he returned, he says he became the target of "overt homophobia" for the first time.
"And it was very sad, because this was happening in my hometown," Seifert said. "Where I grew up, where I chose to work and live."
Seifert had been installing art in the evenings for a local nonprofit group since 1984. In 1995, a new security guard was hired who Seifert said had a habit of making homophobic remarks. The remarks were directed at both Seifert and other employees the security guard perceived to be gay or lesbian.
"There were several occasions where I would say things like, 'We're all here to do our jobs regardless of what we are. I don't see why this is an issue. You need to just back off,'" he said. "And the security guard would sort of giggle about it as though he thought it was fun."
After about eight months of trying to stop the harassment himself, Seifert reported it to the executive director and assistant director.The security guard stopped making derogatory statements for a short time but then started again later. According to Seifert, the executive director and assistant kept saying they would take care of it. Although reprimanded a few times, the security guard continued, and Seifert said the man seemed to relish the fact that he could get away with it.
Seifert said he didn't want the security guard to lose his job or to go to court.
"All I wanted was for an understanding to take place. That we are a diverse community working in a diverse work situation and that everybody has the right to be respected equally," Seifert said.
Three years passed, and the harassment continued. He called the Human Rights Commission but said he was under the impression that there wasn't much the commission could do for him.
Seifert talked to a friend who is a federal civil rights administrator. Since his workplace receives some federal money, Seifert's friend said he could file a "complaint as a hostile work environment." While Seifert considered that option the security guard was diagnosed with a terminal illness. In a few months, the security guard died.
If the amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance passed, Seifert said the HRC would have the proper training to investigate such situations."I really think those involved at the foundation were very earnest in trying to solve the problem," Seifert said. "The situation was such that they didn't really have the time or the proper know-how to deal with this."
'You don't have any protection'
As parishioners worked around the Southside Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), minister Martha Carroll said, a pickup truck with a few men drove fast through the parking lot, honking their horns and yelling derogatory terms out the window.
A few months later, another truck came through, this time while Carroll was preaching a Sunday sermon.
"Being harassed like that on our property, while we're working and worshipping, is unsettling," Carroll said.
The church became "open and affirming" of gays in 1993. Carroll, who has been the minister there for 10 years, said she has heard stories of discrimination from gay members of her congregation who have been rejected by their families and other churches. Carroll knows strategies some parishioners use to cover up their sexual identity such as avoiding conversations about family or putting up pictures at work.
Carroll understands that all too well.
After her first month at seminary, Carroll went to her psychology professor for guidance on how to change herself from being lesbian. As a lesbian, she couldn't become a minister in the United Methodist Church. Her professor suggested she go through reparative therapy, a process meant to reverse homosexuality.
Carroll went through therapy, married and had a daughter. She also switched denominations to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). After 10 years of marriage, her husband asked for a divorce in 1985. The therapy had failed.
"The result was anger, depression, emotionally absent from my marriage, and so much grief for our family and for our child," Carroll said. "I spent much longer time in therapy to undo the damage that had been done (by reparative therapy)."
Living in Arkansas as a minister who was openly lesbian, she couldn't find a job. She took a job for a child protective services agency, investigating cases of child abuse and neglect. Carroll moved up quickly in the agency and became a liaison for a few counties to the state office.
Then one day, one of the boards that oversaw the office found out Carroll is a lesbian. At a meeting with the board and representatives from the state office, Carroll said she was "called a name" for the first time.
During the proceedings, she talked to an attorney.
"And that's when I found out you don't have any protection. I was a white middle-class female. I had heard all my life that my rights were protected," Carroll said.
Although she won her case, Carroll said the work environment was no longer good for her. Carroll had no legal recourse at the time. If the proposed ordinance passed, all it would do is provide that option, she said.
"It's not going to solve all the problems that GLBT people face, but it protects the most basic rights," Carroll said. "I mean, when did housing become a special right? Does everyone discriminate against GLBT people when it comes to housing? No. But for those cases where that does happen, the person will have someone they can go to."
'They can color your perception of everything'
While Robin MacRorie was having a bad asthma attack in 2001, her partner of seven years, Amber Pardue, rushed her to a local hospital.
When a nurse asked MacRorie questions about her medical history, Pardue attempted to answer for her. Although MacRorie couldn't breathe, the nurse refused to take any information from Pardue.
"The nurse would turn, look me straight in the face and ask the question again. She wouldn't take any of the information until I gasped it out," MacRorie said.
Pardue said the head nurse overheard what was happening, removed the other nurse and took over MacRorie's care. MacRorie and Pardue both said they can't imagine what would've happened if that second nurse didn't show up.
"The frustrating thing to me is that it was simple. All they had to do was give me an inhaler treatment, a nebulizer treatment and that was it," MacRorie said.
There are some restaurants the two won't go to, they said.
"We have problems where once we get seated the waiter or waitress will ignore us and concentrate on everyone else and make us wait twice as long to take the order," Pardue said.
They stopped frequenting a local grocery store because of one clerk.
"She always made nasty comments, not very under her breath, every time we went through the line," Pardue said.Once while at a stoplight, a car full of teenage boys yelled out the window at MacRorie and Pardue's vehicle.For the most part, separately or together, Pardue said these incidents of discrimination don't happen every day.
"But when the events happen, they're intense enough that they can color your perception of everything," Pardue said.
As a student at Indiana University South Bend, Pardue said the student nondiscrimination code protects sexual orientation. That same freedom doesn't apply to most other places in the city.
"We're not talking about whether anyone approves of my behavior," Pardue said. "We're talking about basic civil rights that I've been denied just because someone makes assumptions about my sex life."
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/03/06
Three of the following stories were included in South Bend Equality's study on discrimination.
SOUTH BEND -- Robert Seifert says he knew what discrimination looked like.
Seifert saw many things after he graduated from Central High School and left for college. In the 1970s, he found himself in San Francisco. An advocate for the Bay Area Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression, he aided those who faced discrimination.
Years later, when he returned, he says he became the target of "overt homophobia" for the first time.
"And it was very sad, because this was happening in my hometown," Seifert said. "Where I grew up, where I chose to work and live."
Seifert had been installing art in the evenings for a local nonprofit group since 1984. In 1995, a new security guard was hired who Seifert said had a habit of making homophobic remarks. The remarks were directed at both Seifert and other employees the security guard perceived to be gay or lesbian.
"There were several occasions where I would say things like, 'We're all here to do our jobs regardless of what we are. I don't see why this is an issue. You need to just back off,'" he said. "And the security guard would sort of giggle about it as though he thought it was fun."
After about eight months of trying to stop the harassment himself, Seifert reported it to the executive director and assistant director.The security guard stopped making derogatory statements for a short time but then started again later. According to Seifert, the executive director and assistant kept saying they would take care of it. Although reprimanded a few times, the security guard continued, and Seifert said the man seemed to relish the fact that he could get away with it.
Seifert said he didn't want the security guard to lose his job or to go to court.
"All I wanted was for an understanding to take place. That we are a diverse community working in a diverse work situation and that everybody has the right to be respected equally," Seifert said.
Three years passed, and the harassment continued. He called the Human Rights Commission but said he was under the impression that there wasn't much the commission could do for him.
Seifert talked to a friend who is a federal civil rights administrator. Since his workplace receives some federal money, Seifert's friend said he could file a "complaint as a hostile work environment." While Seifert considered that option the security guard was diagnosed with a terminal illness. In a few months, the security guard died.
If the amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance passed, Seifert said the HRC would have the proper training to investigate such situations."I really think those involved at the foundation were very earnest in trying to solve the problem," Seifert said. "The situation was such that they didn't really have the time or the proper know-how to deal with this."
'You don't have any protection'
As parishioners worked around the Southside Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), minister Martha Carroll said, a pickup truck with a few men drove fast through the parking lot, honking their horns and yelling derogatory terms out the window.
A few months later, another truck came through, this time while Carroll was preaching a Sunday sermon.
"Being harassed like that on our property, while we're working and worshipping, is unsettling," Carroll said.
The church became "open and affirming" of gays in 1993. Carroll, who has been the minister there for 10 years, said she has heard stories of discrimination from gay members of her congregation who have been rejected by their families and other churches. Carroll knows strategies some parishioners use to cover up their sexual identity such as avoiding conversations about family or putting up pictures at work.
Carroll understands that all too well.
After her first month at seminary, Carroll went to her psychology professor for guidance on how to change herself from being lesbian. As a lesbian, she couldn't become a minister in the United Methodist Church. Her professor suggested she go through reparative therapy, a process meant to reverse homosexuality.
Carroll went through therapy, married and had a daughter. She also switched denominations to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). After 10 years of marriage, her husband asked for a divorce in 1985. The therapy had failed.
"The result was anger, depression, emotionally absent from my marriage, and so much grief for our family and for our child," Carroll said. "I spent much longer time in therapy to undo the damage that had been done (by reparative therapy)."
Living in Arkansas as a minister who was openly lesbian, she couldn't find a job. She took a job for a child protective services agency, investigating cases of child abuse and neglect. Carroll moved up quickly in the agency and became a liaison for a few counties to the state office.
Then one day, one of the boards that oversaw the office found out Carroll is a lesbian. At a meeting with the board and representatives from the state office, Carroll said she was "called a name" for the first time.
During the proceedings, she talked to an attorney.
"And that's when I found out you don't have any protection. I was a white middle-class female. I had heard all my life that my rights were protected," Carroll said.
Although she won her case, Carroll said the work environment was no longer good for her. Carroll had no legal recourse at the time. If the proposed ordinance passed, all it would do is provide that option, she said.
"It's not going to solve all the problems that GLBT people face, but it protects the most basic rights," Carroll said. "I mean, when did housing become a special right? Does everyone discriminate against GLBT people when it comes to housing? No. But for those cases where that does happen, the person will have someone they can go to."
'They can color your perception of everything'
While Robin MacRorie was having a bad asthma attack in 2001, her partner of seven years, Amber Pardue, rushed her to a local hospital.
When a nurse asked MacRorie questions about her medical history, Pardue attempted to answer for her. Although MacRorie couldn't breathe, the nurse refused to take any information from Pardue.
"The nurse would turn, look me straight in the face and ask the question again. She wouldn't take any of the information until I gasped it out," MacRorie said.
Pardue said the head nurse overheard what was happening, removed the other nurse and took over MacRorie's care. MacRorie and Pardue both said they can't imagine what would've happened if that second nurse didn't show up.
"The frustrating thing to me is that it was simple. All they had to do was give me an inhaler treatment, a nebulizer treatment and that was it," MacRorie said.
There are some restaurants the two won't go to, they said.
"We have problems where once we get seated the waiter or waitress will ignore us and concentrate on everyone else and make us wait twice as long to take the order," Pardue said.
They stopped frequenting a local grocery store because of one clerk.
"She always made nasty comments, not very under her breath, every time we went through the line," Pardue said.Once while at a stoplight, a car full of teenage boys yelled out the window at MacRorie and Pardue's vehicle.For the most part, separately or together, Pardue said these incidents of discrimination don't happen every day.
"But when the events happen, they're intense enough that they can color your perception of everything," Pardue said.
As a student at Indiana University South Bend, Pardue said the student nondiscrimination code protects sexual orientation. That same freedom doesn't apply to most other places in the city.
"We're not talking about whether anyone approves of my behavior," Pardue said. "We're talking about basic civil rights that I've been denied just because someone makes assumptions about my sex life."
2004 Michiana study finds allegations of gay discrimination
Opposition group disputes study counts as evidence.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/03/06
SOUTH BEND -- South Bend Equality, which was created to fight for amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance protecting sexual orientation and gender identity, conducted a study on gay discrimination in 2004.
The study included interviews with local gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents who say they have faced discrimination in Michiana.
Catherine Pittman, an associate professor at Saint Mary's College and a member of SBE, and SBE member and former human rights commission member Gail McGuire, conducted the study, which received approval from an institutional review board.
SBE presented the study to the Common Council and has repeatedly cited it as evidence of discrimination against gays in the city.
No Special Rights, which is against the proposed amendments, has criticized the study. No Special Rights member Joseph Sergio said case studies are the weakest methodology for researchers. At a hearing in May, he called the study "seriously flawed and biased" and said it should have been conducted by an independent researcher to have merit.
Sergio also argued that none of the cases were investigated and that the study was just made of stories of alleged discrimination.
Pittman said NSR also used personal stories in their evidence that can be considered case studies. SBE never implied the cases presented were investigated, she said. Because no protection exists in the current law, those cases couldn't be investigated by the Human Rights Commission.
"What we were doing was simply providing evidence that complaints of discrimination existed and we were documenting that. We were presenting allegations, not completed investigations," Pittman said.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/03/06
SOUTH BEND -- South Bend Equality, which was created to fight for amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance protecting sexual orientation and gender identity, conducted a study on gay discrimination in 2004.
The study included interviews with local gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents who say they have faced discrimination in Michiana.
Catherine Pittman, an associate professor at Saint Mary's College and a member of SBE, and SBE member and former human rights commission member Gail McGuire, conducted the study, which received approval from an institutional review board.
SBE presented the study to the Common Council and has repeatedly cited it as evidence of discrimination against gays in the city.
No Special Rights, which is against the proposed amendments, has criticized the study. No Special Rights member Joseph Sergio said case studies are the weakest methodology for researchers. At a hearing in May, he called the study "seriously flawed and biased" and said it should have been conducted by an independent researcher to have merit.
Sergio also argued that none of the cases were investigated and that the study was just made of stories of alleged discrimination.
Pittman said NSR also used personal stories in their evidence that can be considered case studies. SBE never implied the cases presented were investigated, she said. Because no protection exists in the current law, those cases couldn't be investigated by the Human Rights Commission.
"What we were doing was simply providing evidence that complaints of discrimination existed and we were documenting that. We were presenting allegations, not completed investigations," Pittman said.
Rights debate draws Internet attacks
Bloggers from other towns and states weigh in on issue.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
5/20/06
SOUTH BEND -- The debate over a proposed change to a human rights ordinance has spilled out of city council chambers and into defamatory hate speech on the Internet, according to No Special Rights member Patrick Mangan.
No Special Rights, a group that opposes amendments that would extend civil rights protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, issued a statement Friday denouncing attacks on the group that are on Internet sites emanating from other parts of Indiana and across the country. Mangan said various Web sites such as Georgia Equality, Psychology News and the University of Florida's Queer News Gator-Gay Straight Alliance are weighing in on the issue in South Bend with "shockingly unkind defamatory comments."
Mangan said South Bend Common Council public hearings so far have been characterized on these sites as "hate-filled," and the sites called No Special Rights a "Christian hate group" and have labeled its members "bigots."
Mangan focused on one site, Advance Indiana, saying it has posted some of the most outrageous attacks. No Special Rights member Jay Dunlap had publicly talked about his gay brother, Tim, and Tim's death as a result of the gay lifestyle. In a recent post, blogger Gary Welsh said, "Tim Dunlap died because he didn't have a loving and caring family who accepted him for who God made him."
The statements set out to "demonize" those who are opposed to the proposed legislation, Mangan said. No Special Rights called for a public apology from Advance Indiana and asked South Bend Equality, along with council members Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd, and Roland Kelly, D-3rd, to "denounce and repudiate the actions of their supporters Advance Indiana." Mangan said if Pfeifer, Kelly and South Bend Equality don't publicly separate themselves from Advance Indiana, it will hurt the "sincerity of those who present a kind face on behalf of these changes."
Although that blog is based in Indianapolis, Mangan said he believes Advance Indiana is connected to South Bend Equality, which has been promoting the amendments.
Catherine Pittman, a member of South Bend Equality, said Friday that the group has no connection to Advance Indiana. After a call from The Tribune, Pittman said she looked at Welsh's Web site and feels that Advance Indiana is a blog by an individual and not sponsored by a gay rights group.
"South Bend Equality has been committed to treating all individuals with respect and compassion and we will continue to do so," Pittman said.
Welsh isn't a member of South Bend Equality, and Pittman said she doesn't understand how Mangan expects the group to control an individual outside of South Bend Equality or the creators of other Web sites weighing in on the issue.
"South Bend Equality has no control over blogs by an individual in Indianapolis," she said.
Pfeifer and Kelly both expressed concern that people outside of the city are disrespectfully commenting on groups involved with the proposed legislation. Pfeifer said Welsh had no right to judge the Dunlap family.
"I denounce any dialogue or any actions going on outside of South Bend that's defamatory against anyone on either side," Pfeifer said.
"I certainly denounce anyone who insults anyone on either side of the issue," Kelly said.
Pfeifer and Kelly said the public hearings have been civil, and both council members said they hope the dialogue will continue that way.
Welsh confirmed that Advance Indiana is the name of his personal blog and is not a group. The blog has no ties to South Bend Equality, he said.
Welsh said he will not apologize to No Special Rights for his "bigot" remarks because he is expressing his opinion on their beliefs about sexual orientation as a choice. As a gay man and a person of faith, Welsh said he finds it offensive when a group condemns gay people as immoral. It is the same argument used by religious groups for discrimination against women, African-Americans and other groups in history, he said.
In the interview and later on his blog, Welsh extended an apology to the Dunlap family for characterizing a family situation he wasn't part of.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
5/20/06
SOUTH BEND -- The debate over a proposed change to a human rights ordinance has spilled out of city council chambers and into defamatory hate speech on the Internet, according to No Special Rights member Patrick Mangan.
No Special Rights, a group that opposes amendments that would extend civil rights protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, issued a statement Friday denouncing attacks on the group that are on Internet sites emanating from other parts of Indiana and across the country. Mangan said various Web sites such as Georgia Equality, Psychology News and the University of Florida's Queer News Gator-Gay Straight Alliance are weighing in on the issue in South Bend with "shockingly unkind defamatory comments."
Mangan said South Bend Common Council public hearings so far have been characterized on these sites as "hate-filled," and the sites called No Special Rights a "Christian hate group" and have labeled its members "bigots."
Mangan focused on one site, Advance Indiana, saying it has posted some of the most outrageous attacks. No Special Rights member Jay Dunlap had publicly talked about his gay brother, Tim, and Tim's death as a result of the gay lifestyle. In a recent post, blogger Gary Welsh said, "Tim Dunlap died because he didn't have a loving and caring family who accepted him for who God made him."
The statements set out to "demonize" those who are opposed to the proposed legislation, Mangan said. No Special Rights called for a public apology from Advance Indiana and asked South Bend Equality, along with council members Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd, and Roland Kelly, D-3rd, to "denounce and repudiate the actions of their supporters Advance Indiana." Mangan said if Pfeifer, Kelly and South Bend Equality don't publicly separate themselves from Advance Indiana, it will hurt the "sincerity of those who present a kind face on behalf of these changes."
Although that blog is based in Indianapolis, Mangan said he believes Advance Indiana is connected to South Bend Equality, which has been promoting the amendments.
Catherine Pittman, a member of South Bend Equality, said Friday that the group has no connection to Advance Indiana. After a call from The Tribune, Pittman said she looked at Welsh's Web site and feels that Advance Indiana is a blog by an individual and not sponsored by a gay rights group.
"South Bend Equality has been committed to treating all individuals with respect and compassion and we will continue to do so," Pittman said.
Welsh isn't a member of South Bend Equality, and Pittman said she doesn't understand how Mangan expects the group to control an individual outside of South Bend Equality or the creators of other Web sites weighing in on the issue.
"South Bend Equality has no control over blogs by an individual in Indianapolis," she said.
Pfeifer and Kelly both expressed concern that people outside of the city are disrespectfully commenting on groups involved with the proposed legislation. Pfeifer said Welsh had no right to judge the Dunlap family.
"I denounce any dialogue or any actions going on outside of South Bend that's defamatory against anyone on either side," Pfeifer said.
"I certainly denounce anyone who insults anyone on either side of the issue," Kelly said.
Pfeifer and Kelly said the public hearings have been civil, and both council members said they hope the dialogue will continue that way.
Welsh confirmed that Advance Indiana is the name of his personal blog and is not a group. The blog has no ties to South Bend Equality, he said.
Welsh said he will not apologize to No Special Rights for his "bigot" remarks because he is expressing his opinion on their beliefs about sexual orientation as a choice. As a gay man and a person of faith, Welsh said he finds it offensive when a group condemns gay people as immoral. It is the same argument used by religious groups for discrimination against women, African-Americans and other groups in history, he said.
In the interview and later on his blog, Welsh extended an apology to the Dunlap family for characterizing a family situation he wasn't part of.
Third gay rights hearing packed with emotion
Members of public share personal stories
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
5/18/06
SOUTH BEND – Beyond the statistics and packets of information, the public offered emotional personal testimony about proposed changes to the human rights ordinance during the Common Council’s third public hearing Wednesday.
Extra chairs were set up outside of council chambers, but most people chose to stand in the back of the room. No Special Rights gave out blue and yellow stickers which read “Protect Our Children” and had the group’s name and others, while South Bend Equality wore pins that said “I Care About Equality!”
South Bend Equality is in favor of the ordinance, which would add language to the human rights ordinance to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people from discrimination. No Special Rights is opposing the legislation, arguing that it confers special rights to an already protected group.
Jay Dunlap said laws in Massachusetts allowing gay marriage shut down the adoption branch of Catholic Charities in Boston because of the church’s opposition to adopting children to gay couples. As a father of four children who were adopted through Catholic Charities, Dunlap said the group has helped to place children in difficult life situations into loving homes.
“I know personally the importance of these services,” Dunlap said. “I ask you to consider carefully what some of the unintended consequences of passing this ordinance could be.”
Twenty years ago Nancy Mascotte said her son came out to her as a gay man. Mascotte said she went through a transforming experience as she worked to understand homosexuality.
“I experienced many GLBT persons living the same values I had instilled in my son. Respect for family, self and others ... I found that people live their lives based on values, not orientation,” she said.
When the opposition talks about their “loving” prejudice against GLBT people, she said they are talking about her son, who graduated with honors from college and helped build a Habitat for Humanity house in Korea.
“I’m not asking the Common Council for sympathy for my son or any other GLBT citizen,” Mascotte said. “I’m asking for empathy. I’m asking each of you to try walking in their shoes.”
A family counselor, Nathan “Bud” Steadman, said gay rights groups have said they want to change society beyond the law and that the amendments would allow that agenda to advance in South Bend.
“Whatever ground is given to the homosexual lobby, that ground will simply be the staging area for further destructive activism,” he said. “The very fabric of American society must not change from morality-based law to immoral license.”
Dan Jordan said each time someone gives blood, a health history questionnaire is given. The questionnaire excludes anyone who has used intravenous drugs and men who have engaged in gay sex. HIV infection or people who engage in behavior that could lead to HIV, are also excluded from giving blood, he said. Jordan asked the council not to pass the amendments.
“Gays and bisexuals are not allowed to participate in something as honorable and noble and lifesaving because of chosen activities, not because of some other immutable quality,” he said.
A gay teacher who grew up in this area, Marcus Harris, said he wanted to speak out because he couldn’t stand by and see other GLBT people discriminated against. Because there is no protection for him and other good GLBT citizens in the city, he said, he stands to lose his job based on the person he loves.
Bobby Lopez, a gay high school student, said he and other GLBT students are harassed and worried about their personal safety daily. They are called names in the hallways as classmates and teachers turn a blind eye, he said. Lopez said being gay isn’t a choice and passing the proposal protects tomorrow’s leaders.
“I do not choose to get beat up every day of my life just because I’m different,” he said. “I’m the future; all of my friends are the future. Now if we have to face this kind of discrimination growing up, what kind of future is that?”
Former St. Joseph County Commissioner Mike Hamann said as a high school teacher, his students “often confuse legality with moral legitimacy.” Hamann asked the council to vote against the amendments.
Indianapolis Marion County-City Councillor Scott Keller, R-16th, said no matter what one’s morals beliefs are about homosexuality, the amendments protect basic rights.
“This can be looked at as a preventative thing,” he said.
Council member Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd, said the council is still expected to vote on the measure June 26 and will talk to other council members about whether more hearings are needed. Up until the vote, Pfeifer said, residents can still speak on the issue during privilege of the floor at upcoming council meetings.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
5/18/06
SOUTH BEND – Beyond the statistics and packets of information, the public offered emotional personal testimony about proposed changes to the human rights ordinance during the Common Council’s third public hearing Wednesday.
Extra chairs were set up outside of council chambers, but most people chose to stand in the back of the room. No Special Rights gave out blue and yellow stickers which read “Protect Our Children” and had the group’s name and others, while South Bend Equality wore pins that said “I Care About Equality!”
South Bend Equality is in favor of the ordinance, which would add language to the human rights ordinance to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people from discrimination. No Special Rights is opposing the legislation, arguing that it confers special rights to an already protected group.
Jay Dunlap said laws in Massachusetts allowing gay marriage shut down the adoption branch of Catholic Charities in Boston because of the church’s opposition to adopting children to gay couples. As a father of four children who were adopted through Catholic Charities, Dunlap said the group has helped to place children in difficult life situations into loving homes.
“I know personally the importance of these services,” Dunlap said. “I ask you to consider carefully what some of the unintended consequences of passing this ordinance could be.”
Twenty years ago Nancy Mascotte said her son came out to her as a gay man. Mascotte said she went through a transforming experience as she worked to understand homosexuality.
“I experienced many GLBT persons living the same values I had instilled in my son. Respect for family, self and others ... I found that people live their lives based on values, not orientation,” she said.
When the opposition talks about their “loving” prejudice against GLBT people, she said they are talking about her son, who graduated with honors from college and helped build a Habitat for Humanity house in Korea.
“I’m not asking the Common Council for sympathy for my son or any other GLBT citizen,” Mascotte said. “I’m asking for empathy. I’m asking each of you to try walking in their shoes.”
A family counselor, Nathan “Bud” Steadman, said gay rights groups have said they want to change society beyond the law and that the amendments would allow that agenda to advance in South Bend.
“Whatever ground is given to the homosexual lobby, that ground will simply be the staging area for further destructive activism,” he said. “The very fabric of American society must not change from morality-based law to immoral license.”
Dan Jordan said each time someone gives blood, a health history questionnaire is given. The questionnaire excludes anyone who has used intravenous drugs and men who have engaged in gay sex. HIV infection or people who engage in behavior that could lead to HIV, are also excluded from giving blood, he said. Jordan asked the council not to pass the amendments.
“Gays and bisexuals are not allowed to participate in something as honorable and noble and lifesaving because of chosen activities, not because of some other immutable quality,” he said.
A gay teacher who grew up in this area, Marcus Harris, said he wanted to speak out because he couldn’t stand by and see other GLBT people discriminated against. Because there is no protection for him and other good GLBT citizens in the city, he said, he stands to lose his job based on the person he loves.
Bobby Lopez, a gay high school student, said he and other GLBT students are harassed and worried about their personal safety daily. They are called names in the hallways as classmates and teachers turn a blind eye, he said. Lopez said being gay isn’t a choice and passing the proposal protects tomorrow’s leaders.
“I do not choose to get beat up every day of my life just because I’m different,” he said. “I’m the future; all of my friends are the future. Now if we have to face this kind of discrimination growing up, what kind of future is that?”
Former St. Joseph County Commissioner Mike Hamann said as a high school teacher, his students “often confuse legality with moral legitimacy.” Hamann asked the council to vote against the amendments.
Indianapolis Marion County-City Councillor Scott Keller, R-16th, said no matter what one’s morals beliefs are about homosexuality, the amendments protect basic rights.
“This can be looked at as a preventative thing,” he said.
Council member Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd, said the council is still expected to vote on the measure June 26 and will talk to other council members about whether more hearings are needed. Up until the vote, Pfeifer said, residents can still speak on the issue during privilege of the floor at upcoming council meetings.
Human rights ordinance good for South Bend
MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW
5/14/06
As you may or may not know, sexual orientation is not included in state or federal law as a protected status. In accordance with current state or federal laws, it is possible to lose one's job due to sexual orientation.
Some say that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and should not be elevated to a protected status. With this logic, some say other lifestyle choices such as excessive jewelry or tattooing are unacceptable in the workplace, and homosexuality should be too. The difference is appearance.
Tattoos and jewelry actually can make you look unprofessional, hurting both you and your company's image to your clients. Homosexuality is something that would neither affect your appearance nor your ability to perform well at work. Being professional in your job includes keeping your business life and your personal life separate. As long as anyone performs well at work, there should be no reason an employer would terminate employment based on personal choices. It is hypocritical to push for keeping personal problems out of the workplace, and then terminate someone for doing so. But adding sexual orientation is not only good for employees, it's also good for business.
Companies are realizing in today's fierce economy you must have the best and brightest at your side, and with expanded anti-discrimination policies this becomes possible. As of September 2005, 92 percent of Fortune 500 companies had added sexual orientation to their anti-discrimination policies. Discrimination will only limit the number of talented employees at a company's disposal, hindering a company's ability to work at peak efficiency.
Encouraging diversity not only opens up employment opportunities, but it also increases tolerance in and out of the workplace. Having tolerant and open work environments not only creates a more comfortable environment for employees, but it also improves the image of a company in its community. Tolerant attitudes are the basis for a strong community, serving as a beacon to further attract talent from around the nation.
It's because of the benefits tolerance produces for our community that we must act to add this status to our list of protected persons. And with no required state or federal standard for this type of discrimination, it is at the community level that these changes can have the most effect. If we stand up as a community, the rest of the nation will soon notice.
Indiana's governor has already added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected persons for state employees. As Gov. Mitch Daniels said in his policy statement, "Employment opportunities will be made in a manner that will advance the principles of equal employment opportunity." This has helped to illustrate that it is not a matter of conservative values versus liberal ideals. It is simply a question of fairness in the workplace. Taking this issue to partisan levels will only divide the community on an issue that is meant to bring it closer together.
In a city competing with the whole nation for its place on the economic totem pole, it's important for us to stand out from the crowd and make ourselves known. We are a center of industrial heritage, with the likes of Studebaker etched into our history. We are a center for higher education, with universities and colleges in ample supply. These are things for which we are known, and these are items people consider when considering locations for employment and education. Adding another positive snapshot of our community can do nothing but help our image in the nation.
Being known as a center of tolerance and acceptance is something that will register highly with those wanting good jobs and good environments for their families. Attracting these people will strengthen and diversify our community even more, raising us even further up in the national ladder.
It all starts with us right here at the local level. We have to stand up and show the nation we are a people who embrace one another's differences and grow stronger because of it. Amending our current city ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity is the first step we must all take to show others that we want to include everyone as we steadily rise higher on the economic ladder.
Joseph Jackmovich, South Bend
5/14/06
As you may or may not know, sexual orientation is not included in state or federal law as a protected status. In accordance with current state or federal laws, it is possible to lose one's job due to sexual orientation.
Some say that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and should not be elevated to a protected status. With this logic, some say other lifestyle choices such as excessive jewelry or tattooing are unacceptable in the workplace, and homosexuality should be too. The difference is appearance.
Tattoos and jewelry actually can make you look unprofessional, hurting both you and your company's image to your clients. Homosexuality is something that would neither affect your appearance nor your ability to perform well at work. Being professional in your job includes keeping your business life and your personal life separate. As long as anyone performs well at work, there should be no reason an employer would terminate employment based on personal choices. It is hypocritical to push for keeping personal problems out of the workplace, and then terminate someone for doing so. But adding sexual orientation is not only good for employees, it's also good for business.
Companies are realizing in today's fierce economy you must have the best and brightest at your side, and with expanded anti-discrimination policies this becomes possible. As of September 2005, 92 percent of Fortune 500 companies had added sexual orientation to their anti-discrimination policies. Discrimination will only limit the number of talented employees at a company's disposal, hindering a company's ability to work at peak efficiency.
Encouraging diversity not only opens up employment opportunities, but it also increases tolerance in and out of the workplace. Having tolerant and open work environments not only creates a more comfortable environment for employees, but it also improves the image of a company in its community. Tolerant attitudes are the basis for a strong community, serving as a beacon to further attract talent from around the nation.
It's because of the benefits tolerance produces for our community that we must act to add this status to our list of protected persons. And with no required state or federal standard for this type of discrimination, it is at the community level that these changes can have the most effect. If we stand up as a community, the rest of the nation will soon notice.
Indiana's governor has already added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected persons for state employees. As Gov. Mitch Daniels said in his policy statement, "Employment opportunities will be made in a manner that will advance the principles of equal employment opportunity." This has helped to illustrate that it is not a matter of conservative values versus liberal ideals. It is simply a question of fairness in the workplace. Taking this issue to partisan levels will only divide the community on an issue that is meant to bring it closer together.
In a city competing with the whole nation for its place on the economic totem pole, it's important for us to stand out from the crowd and make ourselves known. We are a center of industrial heritage, with the likes of Studebaker etched into our history. We are a center for higher education, with universities and colleges in ample supply. These are things for which we are known, and these are items people consider when considering locations for employment and education. Adding another positive snapshot of our community can do nothing but help our image in the nation.
Being known as a center of tolerance and acceptance is something that will register highly with those wanting good jobs and good environments for their families. Attracting these people will strengthen and diversify our community even more, raising us even further up in the national ladder.
It all starts with us right here at the local level. We have to stand up and show the nation we are a people who embrace one another's differences and grow stronger because of it. Amending our current city ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity is the first step we must all take to show others that we want to include everyone as we steadily rise higher on the economic ladder.
Joseph Jackmovich, South Bend
Mayor backs changes to human rights proposal
More hearings on amendment to ordinance slated prior to final vote.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
May 9, 06
SOUTH BEND -- Mayor Stephen Luecke spoke in support of amending the human rights ordinance to include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons during the amendment's first public hearing on Monday afternoon.
The Common Council decided to move a public hearing and the final vote on the proposal from May 22 to June 26 to allow time for more public input and because of scheduling conflicts among council members.
"I believe it is appropriate for our community to make a stand that says we oppose discrimination against individuals of this category," Luecke said.
There is ample evidence locally and nationally of discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people to warrant protective language in the law, Luecke said.
Other cities such as Indianapolis have passed similar ordinances with either voluntary or mandatory compliance. There is some debate over whether local governments can create protected classes, and Luecke said he would support mandatory compliance in the city. Luecke said he is open to hearing more discussion on the issue from the city legal department and council members."I believe it's not only appropriate but important for the city of South Bend to make a statement for fair housing, fair employment for individuals of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender orientation," he said.
Catherine Pittman, a member of South Bend Equality, gave a presentation at the beginning of the hearing. During the opposition portion of the hearing No Special Rights member Patrick Mangan asked Personnel and Finance Committee Chair Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd, if his organization would be allowed to make a similar presentation during Wednesday's hearing.
Mangan expressed concerns last week that those who are against the proposal were not being given an equal voice in the hearing process. Following the meeting, No Special Rights member Tom Uebbing said Pfeifer is allowing the group 45 minutes to give a presentation at the Wednesday afternoon hearing.
Human Rights Commission members Bill Eagan and Penny Hughes said they were speaking at the hearing as private citizens and not as commission members. Hughes said as a real estate agent and landlord she has come across many clients who had previously experienced housing discrimination.
"You'd be surprised at the thank-you notes I've gotten after selling them (GLBT clients) a house that say, 'Thank you for treating me like a normal human being.' Because they hadn't gotten that experience before," Hughes said.It took decades of small grass-roots movements in cases such as suffrage, abolition and civil rights for real change to take place, Eagan said. Passing the ordinance won't be the end of the issue, he said, and as history has shown, sometimes laws are challenged and taken to court. Eagan, who is in favor of the amendment, said the ordinance should pass and let history take its course.
"Please vote for principle and not be unduly influenced by expediency or hate mail," he said.
The commission issued a statement in January 2005 asking the Common Council to come up with a remedy. Per Eagan's request, the commission recently discussed issuing a stronger statement in support of the amendment, according to the unofficial minutes of the Human Rights Commission meeting April 19. The commission decided to wait to hear from the Common Council before taking any action.
During the evening council meeting, several residents spoke in favor of the proposal during privilege of the floor. No one spoke in opposition.
April Lidinsky, a member of the American Association of University Women, said her organization is in favor of the amendment. The AAUW has been working on GLBT rights in communities across the U.S., she said."We cannot eliminate sexism without eliminating homophobia," Lidinsky said.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
May 9, 06
SOUTH BEND -- Mayor Stephen Luecke spoke in support of amending the human rights ordinance to include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons during the amendment's first public hearing on Monday afternoon.
The Common Council decided to move a public hearing and the final vote on the proposal from May 22 to June 26 to allow time for more public input and because of scheduling conflicts among council members.
"I believe it is appropriate for our community to make a stand that says we oppose discrimination against individuals of this category," Luecke said.
There is ample evidence locally and nationally of discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people to warrant protective language in the law, Luecke said.
Other cities such as Indianapolis have passed similar ordinances with either voluntary or mandatory compliance. There is some debate over whether local governments can create protected classes, and Luecke said he would support mandatory compliance in the city. Luecke said he is open to hearing more discussion on the issue from the city legal department and council members."I believe it's not only appropriate but important for the city of South Bend to make a statement for fair housing, fair employment for individuals of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender orientation," he said.
Catherine Pittman, a member of South Bend Equality, gave a presentation at the beginning of the hearing. During the opposition portion of the hearing No Special Rights member Patrick Mangan asked Personnel and Finance Committee Chair Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd, if his organization would be allowed to make a similar presentation during Wednesday's hearing.
Mangan expressed concerns last week that those who are against the proposal were not being given an equal voice in the hearing process. Following the meeting, No Special Rights member Tom Uebbing said Pfeifer is allowing the group 45 minutes to give a presentation at the Wednesday afternoon hearing.
Human Rights Commission members Bill Eagan and Penny Hughes said they were speaking at the hearing as private citizens and not as commission members. Hughes said as a real estate agent and landlord she has come across many clients who had previously experienced housing discrimination.
"You'd be surprised at the thank-you notes I've gotten after selling them (GLBT clients) a house that say, 'Thank you for treating me like a normal human being.' Because they hadn't gotten that experience before," Hughes said.It took decades of small grass-roots movements in cases such as suffrage, abolition and civil rights for real change to take place, Eagan said. Passing the ordinance won't be the end of the issue, he said, and as history has shown, sometimes laws are challenged and taken to court. Eagan, who is in favor of the amendment, said the ordinance should pass and let history take its course.
"Please vote for principle and not be unduly influenced by expediency or hate mail," he said.
The commission issued a statement in January 2005 asking the Common Council to come up with a remedy. Per Eagan's request, the commission recently discussed issuing a stronger statement in support of the amendment, according to the unofficial minutes of the Human Rights Commission meeting April 19. The commission decided to wait to hear from the Common Council before taking any action.
During the evening council meeting, several residents spoke in favor of the proposal during privilege of the floor. No one spoke in opposition.
April Lidinsky, a member of the American Association of University Women, said her organization is in favor of the amendment. The AAUW has been working on GLBT rights in communities across the U.S., she said."We cannot eliminate sexism without eliminating homophobia," Lidinsky said.
Council urged to amend Human Rights Code
Citizens ask city to codify protection for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered.
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
4/12/06
SOUTH BEND -- Supporters of an amendment to add sexual orientation to the city Human Rights Code urged the Common Council to take action on the issue.
The proposal wasn't on the agenda Monday but was brought up during privilege of the floor. In recent months, supporters of adding gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered civil rights to the city anti-discrimination code have questioned why the council has not taken action on the issue, known as the GLBT amendment, proposed in July 2004. The Common Council also has solicited public comment on the GLBT amendment over the past year.
Catherine Pittman, a member of South Bend Equality, urged the council to think about contributions to the community from people who are GLBT, instead of focusing on their sexual orientation. Members of the GLBT community are "co-workers, neighbors and friends" who work in offices and factories and volunteer in churches and schools.
"These are people who just want to live their lives and offer their talents to the community," Pittman said.
Robin Beck -- an owner of Another Book Store, a GLBT resource center in Mishawaka -- said she hears "horror stories every day" from people who have been fired from their jobs or couldn't get housing because of their sexual orientation. Beck said including GLBT rights in the ordinance will make South Bend a better place to live and work, attracting employers to this area. Beck said other cities such as Indianapolis and Lafayette already have adopted this language into city codes.
City resident Mary Porter said the council received a report on GLBT discrimination in employment, education, housing and public accommodations last April. Porter reminded the council about local interviews included in the report detailing specific incidents. A lesbian suffering from an asthma attack had trouble in the emergency room because her partner wasn't allowed to give the attending nurse medical information. Porter said that in another case, a gay man was told to end his relationship with another man or risk losing his job.
"Because South Bend does not prohibit such discrimination, he had no remedy," she said.
An argument against the amendment is that it is unenforceable, which South Bend resident Rhonda Redman said doesn't make sense. The federal and state human rights codes for employment include sexual orientation and there have been no problems enforcing those rules. Redman said the Human Rights Commission and staff is experienced in investigating discrimination cases and would enforce the code. GLBT citizens should have a right to approach the Human Rights Commission with problems, she said.
"Please empower these citizens to seek a remedy when they feel they've been treated unfairly," Redman said. "South Bend is a community concerned about fairness and justice. We want our community to be safe and fair for all its citizens."
The council met in executive session Tuesday night to discuss the proposed amendment, which hasn't been formally presented to the council. Council President Timothy Rouse, D-at large, said in a memorandum that the issue was being discussed behind closed doors "in light of the threat of litigation."
JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
4/12/06
SOUTH BEND -- Supporters of an amendment to add sexual orientation to the city Human Rights Code urged the Common Council to take action on the issue.
The proposal wasn't on the agenda Monday but was brought up during privilege of the floor. In recent months, supporters of adding gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered civil rights to the city anti-discrimination code have questioned why the council has not taken action on the issue, known as the GLBT amendment, proposed in July 2004. The Common Council also has solicited public comment on the GLBT amendment over the past year.
Catherine Pittman, a member of South Bend Equality, urged the council to think about contributions to the community from people who are GLBT, instead of focusing on their sexual orientation. Members of the GLBT community are "co-workers, neighbors and friends" who work in offices and factories and volunteer in churches and schools.
"These are people who just want to live their lives and offer their talents to the community," Pittman said.
Robin Beck -- an owner of Another Book Store, a GLBT resource center in Mishawaka -- said she hears "horror stories every day" from people who have been fired from their jobs or couldn't get housing because of their sexual orientation. Beck said including GLBT rights in the ordinance will make South Bend a better place to live and work, attracting employers to this area. Beck said other cities such as Indianapolis and Lafayette already have adopted this language into city codes.
City resident Mary Porter said the council received a report on GLBT discrimination in employment, education, housing and public accommodations last April. Porter reminded the council about local interviews included in the report detailing specific incidents. A lesbian suffering from an asthma attack had trouble in the emergency room because her partner wasn't allowed to give the attending nurse medical information. Porter said that in another case, a gay man was told to end his relationship with another man or risk losing his job.
"Because South Bend does not prohibit such discrimination, he had no remedy," she said.
An argument against the amendment is that it is unenforceable, which South Bend resident Rhonda Redman said doesn't make sense. The federal and state human rights codes for employment include sexual orientation and there have been no problems enforcing those rules. Redman said the Human Rights Commission and staff is experienced in investigating discrimination cases and would enforce the code. GLBT citizens should have a right to approach the Human Rights Commission with problems, she said.
"Please empower these citizens to seek a remedy when they feel they've been treated unfairly," Redman said. "South Bend is a community concerned about fairness and justice. We want our community to be safe and fair for all its citizens."
The council met in executive session Tuesday night to discuss the proposed amendment, which hasn't been formally presented to the council. Council President Timothy Rouse, D-at large, said in a memorandum that the issue was being discussed behind closed doors "in light of the threat of litigation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
