SBe-news

Wonder why?

2009-04-29T21:30:00.002-04:00

If you have any question as to why South Bend needs to add protection on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity to its Human Rights Ordinance, read the following comments from the wndu website and consider that the people leaving these comments are possibly our neighbors, employers, teachers, etc. They clearly demonstrate why protection is needed on this basis.

Notice also that many fail to realize that the amendment proposed previously exempted churches and religious groups, an exemption asked for by South Bend Equality. They also confuse the issue with others, enabling them to make even more false claims.

Notice also that none are unwilling to sign their real/full name to their comments.

Posted by: Sporty Location: LaPorte on Apr 28, 2009 at 09:56 AM
This should never pass as it could be used against religious institutions for not hiring a gay person. It also is a stepping stone towards 'hate speech' indictments. If someone speaks out against gay relations say in a religious venue,that could be termed 'hate speech' and subject the individual to arrest. We need to be extremely careful how we address this issue as it has great ramifications for the future.

It's a stepping stone to nothing other than the ability to report alleged discrimination an ability that already exists for many others.

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 28, 2009 at 10:41 AM
There are Federal discrimination laws already in place to protect people from these types of actions in the workplace. It is actions like this that make it obvious these individuals go to IUSB. This is an attempt to draw attention to themselves for whatever selfish reason they may have. Yes, we know you are gay... no one cares.

There is currently NO state or federal legislation available for South Bend residents. State and federal employees are the only ones who have such protection.

Posted by: tina Location: culver on Apr 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Is it S.B. or S.G. (Sodom and Gomorrah)

Unfortunately, tina fails to recognize the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah, one in which the sin of inhospitatlity was a grave sin.

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM
They should be out assisting the needy instead of promoting their sick values.

Last time I checked, we were fighting for the equal treatment of every member of our community. That's sick??? Perhaps Anon is admitting he/she doesn't have an orientation or gender identity?

Posted by: Harry Location: South Bend on Apr 28, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Sporty is correct and it's time that the rest of us stand up for what we believe. These individuals have the same basic human rights as the rest of us, but that is it - no more, no less. I certainly don't believe that they have a right to marry, since that is for a man and a woman. Do what you will behind your doors, but don't expect me to accept your perverted behavior.

This issue isn't about marriage. I'm not sure when holding a job, going to school, maintaining a home or spending money in our community became perverted behavior.

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 28, 2009 at 11:17 AM
if you are not a permanent resident of our fair city, stay out of our council meetings, pushing your agenda, which runs against the majority of the people in this country. This has been my pet peeve for years. When non resident college students can vote in our local and state elections and influence the results. Vote abstentee for your home area, just like I did when I was in the Military. Just a remminder to the city council, you are in a conservative midwestern state that has strong beliefs. We elected you, we can fire you.

Last time around, the leaders of the opposition didn't live in South Bend. Perhaps they should have stayed in their home towns instead of coming to South Bend to push their agenda.

Posted by: Tonya on Apr 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM
If you don't feel safe in SB, don't stay.

Hard to comment on someone who demonstrates so little concern for their neighbors.

Posted by: Me Location: Topeka on Apr 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM
They can do as they wish with their meetings, but it seems to me that there are more important issues than whining about the fact that most of us straight people view their acts as sick and disgusting!

Topeka? Home of Fred Phelps,the man responsible for protesting military funerals. We have another individual who doesn't realize that the majority of people, including straight people, actually support protection of this basis. In fact, such support is around 80%.

Posted by: Billie Location: Jean on Apr 28, 2009 at 01:03 PM
Michael Jackson likes young kids. Should the city council enshrine his right to be with young kids?

Pedophilia is a crime and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Posted by: Jenny on Apr 28, 2009 at 01:48 PM
SICK SICK SICK. Totally unatural..and wrong. Quit wasting the councils time. Seek attention elsewhere. I like Jills comment.

I see. Equal protection for all is a waste of time. Interesting.

Posted by: Heather on Apr 28, 2009 at 08:53 PM
To Janna, God does love gays and lesbians, but he did not create them to be that way. If he did it gays and lesbians would be able to have babies, it would not take a man and a women to make a child.

Look out infertile straight couples. Not sure when having babies was a requirement for holding a job,etc.

GLBT amendment sought in South Bend again

2009-04-29T21:15:00.000-04:00

City council voted down proposal in '06.
from the South Bend Tribune
4/29/09
Jaimie Loo, staff writer

SOUTH BEND — Students from Indiana University South Bend, the University of Notre Dame and Saint Mary's College asked the Common Council during privilege of the floor Monday to consider amending the human rights ordinance to include language for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons.

IUSB Equality vice president Zach Duncan said that without adding language for GLBT people to the ordinance, he doesn't think he would be protected by the law if he was fired from a job for being gay. After he graduates, Duncan said, he would consider leaving South Bend for a job market that has GLBT protections.

Saint Mary's College sophomore Courtney Helman said an environment in which GLBT people cannot report discrimination only furthers intolerance. Helman cited the recent suicide of Carl Walker-Hoover of Massachusetts, who repeatedly was taunted by classmates who claimed he was gay. Walker's mother reported the ongoing harassment to school administrators, she said.

Notre Dame College Democrats president Henry Vasquez said everyone should have basic human rights and that it took progressive changes in this country for African-Americans to be treated equally. Vasquez said he hopes council members will take a stand and be part of the next movement to guarantee rights for GLBT individuals.

None of the council members are supporting measures to reconsider amendments to the human rights ordinance at this time.

In 2006, the council held several public hearings on the proposed amendment over a two-month period. The amendment was defeated in a 5-4 vote.

The proposed amendment was introduced again in 2007 by former council members Charlotte Pfeifer and Randy Kelly but was later pulled from the agenda. In a Tribune interview in late November 2007, Pfeifer said she and Kelly felt there wasn't enough time for the council to review new information before the council's last meeting of the year, and they wanted to make sure there was support for the ordinance before it was brought up again.

College students fight for gay and lesbian rights in South Bend

2009-04-29T20:59:00.003-04:00

Apr 28, 2009
wndu.com

Several groups of college students stood up for what they believe in last night at the South Bend Common Council meeting, saying their rights are not protected and it must change.

They are talking about changing the city's human rights ordinance to include sexual orientation.

Back in 2006, there was a heated debate in the council chambers over this same issue.

Under the current ordinance, gay and lesbian students say their biggest fear is to live in South Bend after graduation.

“If I decided to start a career here, I could be fired just because of the fact I'm gay, not for the fact my job qualifications have blundered, just for the fact I'm gay,” said Zach Duncan, a student at IUSB.

Duncan and other supporters say they will keep showing up to these meetings hoping to persuade the council to make some changes.

"The Last Prejudice" Claims Another Victim

2009-04-24T15:46:00.000-04:00

By Gilbert H. Caldwell,
Retired United Methodist Minister and member of the Soulforce Executive Director's Round Table

The setting is Springfield, Massachusetts: Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover is a student at the New Leadership Charter School. He is active and popular and well-liked by many of the teachers at the School. But, the 11 year old boy was found by his mother hanging from an electrical cord in her home. Ms. Walker was interviewed by Anderson Cooper of CNN and she shared that her son Carl had been verbally abused by some of his classmates, calling him "gay" and using negative words to assault his person.

Rev. Dr. Mel White, founder of Soulforce was on the program with Ms. Walker and put into context some of the reasons for the hatred and abuse that many young people express toward their fellow students who are LGBTQ, or whom they have labeled as being so. Mel, in response to questions from host Anderson Cooper, identified the negative role much of the Church has played in creating the environment for the abuse and bashing of LGBTQ persons, young and old, and in the case of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, a young person whose actions and mannerisms were thought to be gay.

Peter J. Gomes, Professor of Christian Morals and Preacher to Harvard University, wrote "The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart." He describes the bias, bigotry and prejudice toward persons who are same gender loving as "The Last Prejudice." Gomes in his magnificently written book, details how flawed interpretation of the Bible and the embrace of that interpretation by much of the Church, has contributed to the climate that supports and sustains much of the bigotry directed at the LGBTQ community.

I participated in a vigil on the steps of the Colorado State Capitol in Denver, following the beating and death of Matthew Shepard. Although the death of Carl Walker-Hoover was self-inflicted, I feel today as I felt those many years ago. It is difficult to describe the emotional impact the sad and tragic news from Springfield, Massachusetts had upon me when I first heard it.

Mel White, Jeff Lutes the Executive Director, and the staff of Soulforce and Soulforce Q have developed resources and have experiences and insights that could help the Church from continuing to be an accomplice to the harm and hurt caused by those who do violence to LGBTQ persons, or those who are thought to be.

May the death of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, with all of the pain, hurt and anger it evokes in many of us, become a teaching moment - especially for the Church. It is the task of the Church to proclaim to young people, and those not-so-young, that God loves them regardless of their sexual orientation, race, or gender. Some adults failed not only Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover. They also failed to teach those young people who abused Carl - causing his death - that all persons are of sacred worth.

Notre Dame students take ‘staND’ against hate

2009-04-17T14:26:00.001-04:00

from the South Bend Tribune
4/17/09
By MARGARET FOSMOE
Tribune Staff Writer

SOUTH BEND — Some University of Notre Dame students on Thursday snapped up free T-shirts, eager to join a campus effort to eliminate hatred toward gays, lesbians and transgender people.

The black T-shirts, with white lettering, read: "I will not be silent. I will not be indifferent. I will not just tolerate."

The T-shirt giveaway was part of the annual "Make a StaND Against Hate" week on campus, designed to end hostility toward others based on sexual identity.

Many Notre Dame students generally are accepting of others, regardless of sexual orientation, but there still are jokes, hurtful remarks and hostile comments heard on campus, according to students involved in the shirt handout.

"I had several friends who had to transfer (from Notre Dame) because they experienced daily harassment in their dorms (regarding their sexual orientation)," said Notre Dame junior Eddie Velazquez, co-chair of the campus Core Council for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Questioning Students. Such hostility "is definitely present on this campus," he said.

The week's events are "really important. I feel like a lot of people here just brush (such issues) under the rug," said freshman Jason G'Sell, who stopped by to pick up a T-shirt.

Some students will be wearing the shirts today to mark National Day of Silence, dedicated to creating safer schools and colleges for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The week's activities included banner signings, a film screening and the shirt giveaway. The events end today with a silent campus procession and a prayer service.

Staff writer Margaret Fosmoe:
mfosmoe@sbtinfo.com

Rise of hate groups should be no surprise

2009-03-31T16:15:00.000-04:00

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:21 AM
By Leonard Pitts Jr.
There are now 926 hate groups in this country.

Take a second and consider that number. It represents an increase of more than 50 percent since 2000. And by hate groups, I don't mean guys in their bathrobes who go online and pretend their followers are legion. No, I mean actual Klan cells, Neo-Nazi sects, gay-bashing "churches," cliques of black separatists, white nationalists, nativists, racist skinheads and other merchants of venom who meet, plot and recruit in all 48 contiguous states. (Alaska and Hawaii have no known hate groups.) Nine hundred twenty-six of them. The number is a record.

We learn this from the Southern Poverty Law Center www.splcenter.org) in Montgomery, Ala., which has, since its founding in 1971, become a leading authority on the business of hate. According to the latest issue of Intelligence Report, the center's quarterly magazine, that business is booming.

And maybe you wonder how this can be. How can hate enjoy such phenomenal growth in a nation where a Jew serves as senator from Connecticut, a Muslim serves as representative from Minnesota, a Hispanic is governor of New Mexico and a black man is president? The answer is that we are a nation where a Jew serves as senator from Connecticut, a Muslim serves as representative from Minnesota, a Hispanic is governor of New Mexico and a black man is president. Because if those things strike you as signs of progress, well, they are signs of apocalypse to those who believe only white, male Christians are fit to lead.

But that's not the only reason for the increase. The center also cites the debate over illegal immigration that has dominated much of this decade. Though President George W. Bush offered thoughtful, moderate leadership on the issue, he was drowned out by demagogic extremists competing to see which could most effectively scapegoat undocumented workers. They, too, bear responsibility here.

Finally, there is the economy. When things get tough, people become more receptive to the idea that their miseries are all the fault of some alien other. So the stock market, too, is implicated. Hate rises when the Dow falls.

I imagine the center's findings land like cold water in the faces of those who took Barack Obama's ascension to the presidency as proof that the nation was finally cured of the sickness of hate. The truth, I'm afraid, is more nuanced than that.

Maybe it helps to think in terms of alcoholism, a disease that can, with treatment, be contained, controlled, put into remission -- but never cured. Even when you've got years of sobriety under your belt, the germ of it lurks in your bloodstream. Which is why alcoholics do not call themselves cured. Rather, they say they are recovering.

Hate is something like that, a fact some of us have never quite understood. Such folks are convinced there is a goal line out there somewhere which, once crossed, will allow the nation to declare itself cured. And once cured, we'll never have to grapple with hatred again.

But it doesn't work that way.

In a nation so deeply riven by culture, race and religion, there is always a temptation to hate somebody, to blame some group of others for the job you lost, the crime committed against you, the fear and uncertainty you feel. There is a simplicity and a seductiveness to it that are all too easily mistaken for righteousness.

So there is no cure for a nation's hate. There is only an ongoing process of getting better, not unlike the alcoholic who must daily earn his sobriety anew. This explosion of hate is a reminder of what happens when we forget that, when we are undeservedly sanguine about how enlightened we've become.

It is said that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Well, that's the going rate for tolerance, too.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for The Miami Herald.

lpitts@miamiherald.com

Celebrating with the NAACP

2009-02-16T10:46:00.002-05:00

from the South Bend Tribune
2/15/09

A day to celebrate a century of work by the NAACP
COMMENTARY

LEONARD PITTS

It began before it began.

This was in 1905 when the great black scholar W.E.B. DuBois called a meeting of prominent black men. They met on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls because hotels in their own country would not accommodate them and formed what became known as the Niagara Movement.

The Movement, which held a subsequent meeting at Harper’s Ferry, W.Va., issued a statement that said in part, “We claim for ourselves every single right that belongs to a freeborn American, political, civil and social; and until we get these rights we will never cease to protest and assail the ears of America.” But the movement, hampered by various difficulties, soon sputtered and became inactive.

Then the riot came.

For six days in August of 1908, a mob of white people surged through the streets of Springfield, Ill., lynching and maiming black people at will and at whim. The irony of this happening in the hometown of Abraham Lincoln, earnestly if somewhat simplistically revered as the Great Emancipator, was lost on no one, the rioters least of all. “Lincoln freed you, we’ll show you your place,” they cried as they flogged black people through the streets.

The appalling spectacle energized white liberals like Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard. On Lincoln’s 100th birthday, Feb. 12, 1909, they joined with DuBois and other remnants of the Niagara Movement to issue a call for a conference on race. That call, a century ago today, was the birth certificate of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The milestone simultaneously demands and defies commemoration.

It is, after all, hard to hug an institution. And if it’s true that history is biography, it’s not hard to understand why the NAACP has often seemed overshadowed by larger-than-life personalities like Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson. Even its most celebrated members — DuBois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Thurgood Marshall, Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks — are better known for what they did than for the organization to which they belonged.

Who regards the NAACP with the reverence those men and women inspire? DuBois notwithstanding, there is in the NAACP story no central charismatic figure. Instead, there is The Work. There is fighting voter suppression and protesting lynch law and writing legal briefs. There is issuing press releases and filing complaints and lobbying lawmakers. There is awarding scholarships and publishing reports and sponsoring workshops and holding accountable. There is advancement made in increments.

Until one day you look up and see that because of those increments, the world has changed as if in a bolt of lightning. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision is the most obvious illustration, but really, the proof is the whole country since 1909. It is Sidney Poitier and Condoleezza Rice and Guion Bluford and Barack Obama. And me. Maybe even you.

For all that, one often senses in African America a certain ambivalence toward the NAACP. Too middle class, says one school of criticism. Not relevant, says another. Still others are offput by scandals of leadership over the last 15 years or so. And for some, perhaps the organization’s greatest sin is simply this: it is not exciting.

Organizations seldom are.

But they do The Work, don’t they? The Work that is bigger than one person and longer than one life. Because the NAACP has done The Work, we can pause upon a milestone in a world transformed, a world in which Obama is president and Oprah is queen. If the difference looks like a lightning bolt, we know better.

And we celebrate the increments by which we advance.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, FL 33132. Readers may write to him via e-mail at lpittsmiamiherald.com.

America's sin: Silence in the face of injustice

2009-01-21T14:27:00.001-05:00

America's sin: Silence in the face of injustice
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
1/21/09

In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed, "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people ..."

While we can take comfort in the fact that the civil rights movement ended this country's most blatant forms of racism, the persistence of injustice in our society should inspire outrage and action.

Are we standing in appalling silence as our immigrant neighbors live in constant fear of workplace raids and racial profiling — all because they were forced to leave their home countries to find work to support their families?

Are we speaking out to demand and end to discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation? Or are we watching silently as others are denied equal rights?

Are we demanding that this exceptionally rich country provide for the basic needs of all? Or are we content to substitute charity for justice as long as our own comforts are secure?

If King were alive today, he would no doubt demand that we end these appalling silences that perpetuate human suffering and indignity.

Jackie Smith
South Bend

My apologies

2009-01-20T15:17:00.003-05:00

I must apologize for the delay in posting several articles. Sometimes, it gets a bit overwhelming having to deal with the "gay agenda". You know, living a "homosexual lifestyle" can be quite tiring with having to constantly deal immoral activities such as caring for kids, school activities, homework, meals, housework, holidays and family. Things like keeping up with a blog sometimes just have to wait. I'm just grateful that Denise picked up more milk yesterday. Now, if I can just remember to pick the dog u some treats, we'll be back on top of things.

Ordinary

2009-01-20T15:16:00.000-05:00

From the South Bend Tribune
Voice of the People
12/31/08

I have always known I was different. I could not put a name on it, but people around me sensed my vulnerability and they used it against me. When I was very young I was sexually abused by a teenage neighbor. I stayed pretty much a loner for a good part of my life since.

It would be years before I could put a name on my feelings. I have taken classes at Indiana University South Bend in psychology, sociology and anthropology. These diversity classes led me into gay organizations where I finally found a home. I can relate to these people and I have found peace of mind among them. So it makes me feel sad when

Christians use the Bible to discredit and misrepresent the gay experience in this community and elsewhere.

ay people are ordinary people just trying to live their lives. That's all. End of story. We are kind, giving, responsible people who wish nothing more than to stop being discriminated against.

Bernie Dolezal Jr.
South Bend

Happiness is the Declaration of Human Rights

2009-01-20T15:13:00.001-05:00

From the South Bend Tribune
Michiana Point of View
12/12/08

I was sitting in the Local 5, United Auto Workers, hall for the 60th anniversary of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 6 and I was feeling proud. I had a smile in my heart. I was smiling because my dear mother was so proud of being a union member all of the years that she worked at Simplicity Pattern Company. I was proud because my daughter is a current member of Local 5. The unions make it possible for working-class people, people of color and women, to live well -- good decent independent lives. Honest money.

I was proud of the Indiana University South Bend students who provided us with slapstick between speakers. I smiled at the adorable little girl, now a teenager, who I remember sleeping in the brown rocking chair that I bought from her mother during the West Washington Street yard sale 10 years ago. I smiled at all of the people in the room who I have known for years who, like me, are gray, wrinkled, pot-bellied and committed.

I smiled to think about the article in The Tribune that said Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in getting the Universal Human Rights Declaration passed and how Hillary Clinton stood up for women's rights in Beijing 13 years ago.

When it was my turn to speak, I was in good company as I stood up once again for individuals' long overdue human rights. A person's right to file a complaint with the South Bend Human Rights Commission if that person believes he or she may have been discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity in the areas of education, housing, public accommodations or employment is a human right. I smiled because the South Bend Common Council came within one vote in 2006 of amending the ordinance that would allow this very basic human right: justice.

The late, beloved and former council member Roland Kelly and I held hands under the table as the ordinance was being debated. I always smile when I think of my sweetheart.

It seems so pitiful, so embarrassing and so sad that people today in this great country would have to beg for a basic human right, justice. Indianapolis passed the same ordinance in December 2005. South Bend can also.

The boogeyman accusations are, "where will this stop, we are going down a slippery slope, and these are special rights."

In the USA we don't stop. There is nothing slippery about this slope and the only thing special about these rights is that we openly deny them to some people while we give them to others.

I continue to run into people who are shocked that these rights are denied to some of our citizens. Those shocked are old and young, people of all races, and Christians and non-Christians.

Our Declaration of Independence talks about inalienable rights ... "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." We don't stop until we fulfill the promise of the president that President-elect Barack Obama most admires, Abraham Lincoln, who stated in the Gettysburg Address, "Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

I smiled. I smiled inside; a smile of pride, hope and the confidence that we will do the right thing ... we always do. Happy birthday, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Happy birthday to ya!

Charlotte D. Pfeifer lives in South Bend.

"Special Rights"

2009-01-20T15:07:00.002-05:00

More wacky comments brought to you by CCV member, Tom Uebbing. Notice that he claims that regardless of what the facts are regarding homosexuality, we should still make a moral judgment on it. Of course, this moral judgment must be based on HIS understanding of HIS religion. No other opinions need apply.

From the South Bend Tribune
Voice of the People
12/12/08

Rev. Edward Ruetz's characterization of the opponents of special rights for homosexuals as unChrist-like is facile. He alleges that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. Jesus affirmed the sin of Sodom will be punished. (Matthew 10:15; 11:24) Jesus' personally authorized representatives ("He who rejects you, rejects me" -- Luke 10:16), the Apostles, repeated his warning. Jude identified the sin of Sodom as "unnatural vice." (Jude 7)

Paul identified homosexual sex as sin (Romans 1:27) which if unrepented bars entrance to heaven. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Even if homosexuality were inborn and genetic, which it is not, the practice should not be legitimized in the law any more than a hot temper. You still must make a moral judgment about it.

Simply uttering the magic word "discrimination" does not make a case for good law. If what is protected is an intrinsically disordered and morally wrong behavior -- homosexual sex -- enforcement of the law will inevitably pose a conflict for citizens of conscience. They would be punished for opposing the negative effects of homosexual behavior. We would punish what is good for the sake of accommodating what is bad. That is bad law.

Tom Uebbing

South Bend

Bathroom 'issue' just a silly distraction

2009-01-20T15:04:00.000-05:00

From the South Bend Tribune
Voice of the People
12/10/08

Bathrooms? Please. This is the argument used in the '70s when many of us were working to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. I remember hearing that what the proponents of the ERA really wanted was joint bathrooms. It was a ludicrous, weird argument.

And here it is again, being used by Joe Sergio, in his letter of Nov. 13. It would be laughable, except that it completely ignores the real issues: Justice, equality, and freedom -- in the workplace, in education, in housing and medical care -- for all people, not just for some, and instead focuses on toilets.

Why is that? Why would anyone want to cheapen a conversation about people and justice and equality in such a way? Conversations about difficult, controversial subjects are far better served, surely we can all agree, by focusing on the real issues.

Nancy Mascotte did not stand before the SouthBend Common Council to make a case for the creation of joint bathrooms serving both males and females. These already exist -- in our homes and in family bathrooms in many public places. She was speaking out for what does not exist: equality for all Americans. Let's not trivialize the issue.

Martha Carroll

South Bend

Judge and Jury

2009-01-07T11:39:00.014-05:00

I've never been on trial before, although I worked as a paralegal for many years and am familiar with courtrooms. It is quite a different perspective, however, to actually feel like your fate lies in someone else's hands. That is the feeling I get when I think about the South Bend Common Council deciding whether or not to amend the city's Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity. I feel like they are judging me - like they have some strange power over my life.

In reality, these feelings are quite overblown. Although it seems like I'm begging for their blessing, all I really want is a place to go to file a grievance should I believe I've been discriminated against. The Council members don't need to condone with my orientation, or even really to understand it. They just need to admit that GLBT persons do face discrimination and should have somewhere to go to report allegations. This system works in cities all over America; there is no reason why it should not work here in South Bend.

I've given some thought as to why I feel like the Council is scrutinizing my friends and me every time this issue comes up. Maybe it's because of the way society tries to put GLBT persons in a box and marginalize us? Or, perhaps it is because it feels like those who condemn do so much more loudly than those who accept?

For whatever reason, I think there needs to be perspective on this issue. After all, this is not Solomon deciding whether or how to split the baby; it is elected officials recognizing a hole in the system of justice and equal rights that needs to be filled.

If the Council decides to allow GLBT persons access to the Human Rights Commission, life will be more secure. I'll gain assurance in the knowledge that my job, my house, my education, and my life in South Bend are valued and protected. If the amendment is rejected, I'll know that discrimination is definitely alive and well, and that it still permeates not only the fabric of society, but the power structure in our government, too.

Unfortunately, the latter confirmation would be no surprise, but it would be a big disappointment. After all, I am a constituent, too.

A voice of reason

2008-11-24T08:45:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rev. Edward J. Ruetz
South Bend

More "love" from the opposition

2008-11-13T22:12:00.005-05:00

11/13/2008

GLBT

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

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

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

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

Joe Sergio
South Bend

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

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

Majority Rule, Minority Rights

2008-11-10T12:09:00.001-05:00

Majority Rule, Minority Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discrimination

2008-10-15T10:22:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth Karle
South Bend

A Democrat by any other name...

2008-10-14T20:29:00.016-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago may get 'gay-friendly' high school

2008-10-13T10:47:00.002-04:00

from CNN.com
By Mallory Simon

Story Highlights
High school would not be exclusively for gay students

Officials say harassment contributing to high dropout rates among gay students

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-10-11T20:10:00.001-04:00

from Progressives, South Bend

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

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

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

Imagine my astonishment when the amendment failed by one vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Don Wheeler lives in South Bend.

Meet one of the "loving opposition"

2008-10-11T19:55:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Jay Dunlap
South Bend

'Loving' opposition is full of hate

2008-10-07T08:11:00.000-04:00

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
10/07/08

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

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

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

Nancy Mascotte
South Bend

Pride, Community & AARP

2008-10-06T16:50:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-09-29T10:25:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you at the park!

The plank in one's eye

2008-08-16T12:20:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, of course, the Beatitudes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-08-15T08:23:00.001-04:00

VIEWPOINT (South Bend Tribune)
8/15/08

By DON WHEELER

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

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

Imagine my astonishment when the amendment failed by one vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Don Wheeler lives in South Bend.

Richard Cohen, "ex-gay therapist" on CNN

2008-07-21T11:16:00.010-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testimony of a "former homosexual"

2008-07-15T13:31:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

Homosexuality and the Bible...an invitation to learn

2008-07-08T13:16:00.001-04:00

Hello Friends,

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

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

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

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

Thanks so much!

Martha Carroll
Minister

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

Southside Christian Church
1329 E Jackson Rd
South Bend

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

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

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

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

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

2008-06-25T11:04:00.004-04:00

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

Hat tip to Indiana Equality for reporting on this.

From the Grand Rapids Press:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-06-25T09:46:00.012-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay brain, straight brain?

2008-06-18T10:22:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good work, if you can get it

2008-06-16T10:52:00.014-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voices, once silenced, can now be heard

2008-05-20T17:30:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-05-17T09:55:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

Read the complete story here.

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

2008-05-14T14:03:00.007-04:00

Hat Tip to Progressives, South Bend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addressing Mr. Mangan's concern as to

"how poorly gays treat ex-gays"

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-05-14T09:31:00.009-04:00

Hat Tip to Progressives, South Bend

First, some history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-05-13T08:02:00.002-04:00

PlanetOut News
Mon May 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common Council member gets award from GLBT rights group

2008-05-11T11:14:00.001-04:00

Tribune Staff Report
12/15/2007

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

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

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

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

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

HRO Commentary

2008-05-11T11:03:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

Imagine my astonishment when the amendment failed by one vote.

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

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

Read more...

Council to revisit ordinance on rights

2008-05-11T11:01:00.000-04:00

Pfeifer brings defeated GLBT amendment back.

MARTI GOODLAD HELINE
Tribune Staff Writer
11/22/07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay rights group speaks at South Bend Common Council meeting

2008-05-09T14:47:00.003-04:00

5-4 vote against amendments made two weeks ago

JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/25/06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human rights amendment fails, 5-4 in South Bend

2008-05-09T14:34:00.004-04:00

Council nixes sexual orientation, gender identity measure.

JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
7/11/06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposing views on proposed rights amendment

2008-05-09T14:27:00.003-04:00

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.

South Bend rights amendment addressed

2008-05-09T14:23:00.002-04:00

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."

Let's set record straight on proposed ordinance addition

2008-05-09T14:20:00.001-04:00

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.

Voices behind the battle for gay-rights protections in South Bend

2008-05-09T14:16:00.002-04:00

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."

2004 Michiana study finds allegations of gay discrimination

2008-05-09T14:08:00.001-04:00

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.

Rights debate draws Internet attacks

2008-05-09T14:02:00.001-04:00

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.

Third gay rights hearing packed with emotion

2008-05-09T14:00:00.000-04:00

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.

Human rights ordinance good for South Bend

2008-05-09T13:56:00.001-04:00

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

Mayor backs changes to human rights proposal

2008-05-09T13:55:00.000-04:00

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.

Council urged to amend Human Rights Code

2008-05-09T13:50:00.001-04:00

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."

Council to discuss human rights code

2008-05-09T13:46:00.001-04:00

Possible litigation drives Common Council members out of public eye.

JAMIE LOO, Tribune Staff Writer
4/8/06

SOUTH BEND -- A year to the day since the Common Council saw a presentation on adding sexual orientation to the city human rights code, the council will re-examine the issue behind closed doors.

Council President Timothy Rouse, D-at large, is convening an executive session April 11 to discuss a proposal that would add protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people to the city human rights code.

Since the issue was first raised in 2004, the council has received letters and other testimony regarding the proposed ordinance. One of the letters, sent by Joseph P. Sergio in October 2004, said a change to the ordinance "is likely to trigger an endless source of lawsuits" on both sides of the issue. Sergio, who is a member of Citizens for Community Values, didn't say that he was initiating any lawsuits over the ordinance.

In a memorandum to the council, Rouse said, "in light of the threat of litigation, I believe that an executive session would be helpful."

The issue was brought up first in July 2004 by then-council President Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd. Meetings were held to gather input, and people were encouraged to send their thoughts on the proposal to the Common Council.

In January 2005, the South Bend Human Rights Commission issued a position statement asking the Common Council to investigate possible sexual orientation discrimination in the city and to consider a "remedy."

April 11, 2005, was the last time the council officially examined the issue when South Bend Equality, a group representing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered rights, gave a presentation to the Council Personnel and Finance Committee.

Recently, several citizens have spoken during the Common Council's privilege of the floor, supporting protection for GLBT people through an ordinance. During the council's last meeting March 27, Bill Eagan, a member of the Human Rights Commission, asked the council why no action has been taken on the issue.

Firms rush to comply with gay-rights law

2008-05-08T08:31:00.002-04:00

Companies should ensure policies are legal, lawyers say

Indianapolis Star
By Dana Knight
12/26/05

Just Hair owner Zach Adamson didn't have to comb through his employee handbook to make sure company policies were in line with the revised city ordinance banning discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace.

He's offered that protection to employees at his hair salon for eight years.
"Of course, we already cover that," said Adamson, who is gay and praised the new law in between haircuts at his business on East Ohio Street. "The scary thing about it is most people thought this protection was already there at all companies."

Not so. Many Indianapolis employers found themselves scrambling last week to see what they need to do to comply with the new law, officially called Proposal 622, passed Monday by the City-County Council. When Mayor Bart Peterson signed off on it Thursday, the ordinance immediately went into effect.

The new law revises the city's Human Rights Ordinance, adding protection based on a worker's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Many law firms swiftly sent notes to clients outlining detailed steps to make sure their policies are legal. Ice Miller's note boldly warned: "The following steps should be taken now."

"The majority of employers in Indianapolis will find they need to revise their policies," said Michael Blickman, a labor and employment attorney with Ice Miller. "While some employers have prohibited sexual orientation discrimination, I am confident that very few -- perhaps only a handful -- include gender identity as a protected category."

The law does not require employers to include discrimination bans in company handbooks. The ordinance itself effectively covers all employees working at Indianapolis companies with six or more workers, with exceptions for religious institutions and certain nonprofits.

"Still, it would seem to me employers will want to amend their policies," said Bill Groth, a labor and employment attorney with Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe in Indianapolis. "It gives them evidence if somebody were to charge them with a violation of the law."

In other words, the policy would give the company a potential legal defense should it find itself in court faced with discrimination charges.

While there are no comprehensive statistics on how many companies in the city offer sexual orientation protections, the Human Rights Campaign, which tracks employers who do, reports 20 Indiana-headquartered companies in its database and more than 2,200 nationwide.

The number of companies that include transgender, or gender identity, protection is so low that the organization, which works to protect the equal rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders, doesn't track it.

Celadon Trucking in Indianapolis doesn't include either protection in its employee handbook, for example.

"It hasn't been intentional," said spokesman Craig Koven, adding that the company already operates as if the protection is there. "You put skills and ability to contribute to successes above everything else."

Celadon will be adding language to comply, Koven said.

"Right now, there is a truck driver shortage," he said. "We are eager to hire anyone who meets our driving standards."

Making policies legal is the easy part for employers, according to Blickman. Simply review the current writings and add sexual orientation and gender identity to the areas already protected by law, like race, religion, gender and disability.

The part that may be tougher, experts say, is explaining the changes to management and employees.

Blickman suggests including the revisions in training programs already in place.

Employers need to be sure that workers know the proper way to act and that management is aware of the appropriate reasons to let a worker go, he said.

The policies may seem obvious, but workers must be reminded that gay jokes could now make the company vulnerable to lawsuits. And the protection of gender identity may present tricky questions.

Not only that, but if the company institutes a specific policy banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in its handbook, workers must be reminded they could be fired for violating the policy. Employers can find tips on avoiding discrimination lawsuits at the Human Rights Campaign Web site.

The concept behind Indianapolis' new ordinance would have helped Stephanie Mineart, 37, Indianapolis, tremendously as a worker fresh out of college in the early 1990s.
She went to work for a small printing company and after nine months on the job told a co-worker she was a lesbian.

"A couple of days later, the owner of the company came to me and said, 'We don't want people like you working for us,' " said Mineart, who now works as a Web page developer at Pearson Education, which has a policy banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Until now, if gay employees didn't have such a rule at work, they had no protection from harassment.

"If an employer came to us and said, 'We fired him because he's gay,' the game would be over," said Michelle Eisele, an attorney with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Indianapolis.

Because the EEOC is a federal agency and operates under federal laws, which don't include protection for workers based on sexual orientation or gender identity, it hasn't been able to help Indianapolis workers who felt discriminated against.
Eisele estimates less than 1 percent of the discrimination complaints her office gets are based on sexual orientation.

That doesn't mean the cases aren't out there, says Bil Browning, who has felt the hatred of discrimination firsthand.

Sitting in a staff meeting at a former workplace where employees were encouraged to suggest ways to make the company better, he made an unintentional error.

"I said they should add a sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy, and the next day I was let go," said Browning, who led the charge to revise the Human Rights Ordinance as the Region 8 chair of Indiana Equality, an organization that fights for equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Hoosiers.

Some employers already have instituted policies to prevent discrimination.

At JPMorgan Chase, protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity has been in place for at least six years.

"It's good for business. It's good for diversity, and it makes for a strong work force,'' said spokeswoman Nancy Norris.

All five of Indiana's Fortune 500 companies have protection for lesbians and gays, including WellPoint, which also offers domestic partner benefits.

"We firmly believe that our employee population should reflect the diverse customer base we serve," said James Kappel, a vice president in corporate media relations at WellPoint.

Having such an ordinance will let the city attract the nation's top talent, said Keith Washington, co-owner of Mass Ave. Video Store, the largest independent lesbian and gay-friendly video store in the city.

All but one of the Fortune 50 companies and 420 of the Fortune 500 companies already offer this protection.

Good companies want to operate in a city that aligns with their beliefs, Washington said.

"It lets the state and the world know we are a world-class city," he said. "We'll be able to attract world-class companies and organizations to set up shop."

We all deserve protection from discrimination

2008-05-08T08:22:00.002-04:00

MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW

By CATHERINE PITTMAN
2/13/05

We are members of South Bend Equality, a group of concerned citizens -- women and men, young and old, straight, gay, lesbian, and transgendered.

You know us from your neighborhoods, churches, offices, local businesses, schools, and civic organizations. We have joined together in cooperation and community to extend the protection of the law to all citizens, so that no one can be harassed or mistreated in our community without legal recourse.

We hope to accomplish the passage of an amendment to the South Bend Human Rights Ordinance that would allow people in South Bend to seek assistance if they have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation, in housing, employment, education or public accommodations. At the present time, there is no legal way to address such discrimination in the city of South Bend.

The South Bend Human Rights Commission has asked the Common Council "to explore, investigate, and determine the degree to which gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons (GLBT) have been treated adversely within the city" and, if such discrimination exists, "to create an appropriate remedy." We applaud the commission for expressing its concern about GLBT individuals and we are working to assist the Common Council in this investigation. Since last summer, our goal has been to document discrimination against GLBT individuals in our community.

In our efforts, we have learned a great deal. First, we have documented evidence that unfair treatment does occur in this community. Individuals have not been promoted, have been fired, have been denied the opportunity to rent or purchase a home, and have faced harassment at school or in their neighborhoods.

Second, we have learned that many of our GLBT friends are reluctant to speak up about the discrimination that they experience because they are afraid. They fear they will lose their jobs, that they will be harassed in their neighborhood, or that their children will be mistreated. They know that it is not illegal for them to be fired or evicted because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. These individuals, law-abiding people who contribute to our community, are afraid to seek assistance.

GLBT individuals are not the only ones in our community who face discrimination, but they are without any means of making a complaint about this treatment, because such discrimination is not prohibited. Yet, when seeking to include sexual orientation and gender identity to South Bend's anti-discrimination ordinance, we have been accused of seeking special rights for these individuals.

We do not ask for special rights. We ask for the same rights that all citizens should have: The right to live and work in this community, and to be judged by our actions in the community, not by the way we look, or the individual we love.
The opposition that we face is not simply intolerance, but blatant disregard for human rights. In a Dec. 1 Michiana Point of View, Thomas Eubbing charitably wrote "gays are first and foremost human beings, and need to live and work somewhere," and we agree. But then Eubbing argued that he opposes making a change to the anti-discrimination ordinance, stating "it is my opinion that homosexual sex is intrinsically immoral."

Eubbing expects people to live up to his definition of morality if they are to be given a job or a place to live. He wants to protect himself and others "from the negative influence or risk of danger posed to children by open homosexuals."
Judging a person in this way is clearly based on prejudice and unfounded fear. No evidence exists that a gay individual poses any more danger to a child than a heterosexual individual. Moreover, many heterosexual persons in our communities engage in sexual behavior considered immoral by some individuals, but this does not justify denying those individuals jobs or homes.

Since 1973, researchers and medical and psychological professionals have stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and the American Psychiatric Association's position is that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities," and, further, that an individual's sexual orientation cannot be changed.

What the APA clearly recognizes, however, is that homosexuals face prejudice and hate crimes at a level that ranks them among the most stigmatized groups in the nation. Adolescents suspected of being lesbian or gay are taunted and harassed in school settings, and many gay and lesbian employees in a variety of occupations are fearful of identifying as gay in their work settings. These facts about discrimination are not in dispute.

Some individuals will try to change the focus from discrimination to gay marriage, attempting to cloud the issue and to raise unrelated concerns. We wish to emphasize that amending the city's anti-discrimination ordinance to prohibit discrimination against GLBT individuals will not have any effect on state laws regarding marriage. Neither will faith-based institutions be forced to hire specific individuals because exceptions (to protect religious freedom) are made for educational or charitable institutions owned by or affiliated with a church or religious institution. The focus here is on the general community. The question is simply "Should GLBT individuals have access to a remedy if they face discrimination in housing, employment, education, or access to public accommodations?"

In "The Rise of the Creative Class,'' Richard Florida reports that areas with acceptance of gays tend to have higher rates of innovation and economic growth. We want our city to be a 21st century community that moves beyond unfair discrimination. We don't want to continue to lose talented and diverse individuals (gay or straight) who would contribute to our community. We encourage you to join with us in supporting an amendment to the ordinance. You can e-mail South Bend Equality at info@sbequality.org.

Assisting Catherine Pittman in the writing of this essay were South Bend Equality members Nancy and Hank Mascotte, Martha Carroll, Gail McGuire, P. Taylor, and Elizabeth Karle.

'Ex-gay' therapist cited for ethics breeches

2008-05-08T07:55:00.005-04:00

PlanetOut News
1/26/05

SUMMARY: Richard Cohen, an influential figure in the "ex-gay" movement, has been permanently expelled from the American Counseling Association (ACA) because of ethics violations.

Richard Cohen, an influential figure in the "ex-gay" movement, has been permanently expelled from the American Counseling Association (ACA) because of ethics violations, according to an ACA document.

Cohen, billed as an "expert in sexual reorientation therapy," is the board president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) and author of "Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality." He claims that he was not gay; he had "same-sex attraction disorder" and has since been healed.

The ACA announcement was obtained by Wayne Besen, author of "Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth," and posted on his Web site on Tuesday.

The ACA said Cohen was expelled for violations of six ethical codes and that he "has not elected to appeal the decision taken by the ACA Ethics Committee." Details about the violations were not specified, but they corresponded to ACA codes of conduct toward clients, such as avoiding dual relationships or fostering dependent counseling ties.

The case was closed on May 28, 2002, according to Larry Freeman, the ACA's manager of ethics and professional standards.

"It is no surprise that Richard Cohen violated the ACA ethics, because reparative therapy itself lacks integrity and attempts to meet their agenda's need, not the needs of clients," said Joe Kort, psychotherapist and author of "10 Smart Things Gay Men Can Do to Improve Their Lives."

"Of particular note is that Cohen's violations are self-serving, as he is accused of violating standard ethics of protecting his client from dual relationships, marketing purposes and testimonials," Kort added.

Considered a success story for the "ex-gay" movement, Cohen is an adviser to conservative radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and he has advocated his therapeutic theories on "The O'Reilly Factor," "20/20" and other shows.

One man who considered himself "ex-gay" for 17 years said Cohen's book, "Coming Out Straight," ultimately discouraged him from keeping up the struggle to change his orientation. Rick from Fredonia, N.Y., (who asked that his last name be withheld), said Cohen relies on a common reparative therapy theory: A child who doesn't form a healthy bond with his or her same-sex parent develops an "unhealthy" sexuality.

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

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

Rick added, "I decided to stop being 'ex-gay' after a long process in which I determined being gay was not a sickness to be healed or a sin to be repented of."

The American Psychiatric Association has repudiated "reparative therapy" for homosexuality. "There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person's deep-seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex," the group claims on its Web site.

Gay rights statement OK'd

2008-05-08T07:52:00.001-04:00

Common Council urged to assess need for expanded law

By JOSEPH DITS
Tribune Staff Writer
1/21/05

SOUTH BEND -- The South Bend Human Rights Commission passed a "position statement" Wednesday on a proposal to expand a city ordinance to also protect gays, bisexuals and transgendered people.

It isn't a full endorsement for such an ordinance.

Rather, it encourages the South Bend Common Council to investigate the possibility that city residents are suffering discrimination based on their sexual orientation. It further nudges the council to come up with a "remedy."

One thing must be clear: The commission doesn't create or vote on ordinances. That's the Common Council's job.

In fact, the proposal to introduce the change to the current ordinance came from Common Council member Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd.

Pfeifer has held public meetings to see if there is enough discrimination to warrant the change. She said she doesn't have enough information yet to decide if she'll introduce the change for a vote in the Common Council. For now, she is relying on research help from the group South Bend Equality.

The Human Rights Commission is a group of volunteers who meet monthly to decide, based on the city's human rights ordinance and the staff's investigation, whether complaints of discrimination merit some kind of action.

The commission merely wanted to express its view to the council in the form of a statement.

The commission's words represent a compromise. And that reflects the group's diversity.

Some members would support such a change to the ordinance.

At least two have said they cannot support it because of their religious beliefs. Both have said that, in their Christian churches, the gay lifestyle is considered sinful.

Here is the statement:

"The South Bend Human Rights Commission is an agency of the City of South Bend, Indiana, committed to fair and equal treatment of all human beings. It is the responsibility and duty of the Human Rights Commission to make sure that no human being is mistreated based on status, without making value or moral judgments.

"Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered (G,L,B&T) persons have experienced mistreatment based on their G,L,B&T status. The South Bend Human Rights Commission supports and encourages the South Bend Common Council to hear from the general public, to explore, investigate and to determine the degree to which G,L,B&T persons have been treated adversely within the City of South Bend due to their G,L,B&T status. The South Bend Human Rights Commission further encourages the South Bend Common Council, working cooperatively with the South Bend Human Rights Commission, to create an appropriate remedy."

It passed by a vote of six to one. The six were Raphael "Ray" Thomas Sr., GlendaRae Hernandez, Gail McGuire, Isabel Gonzalez, Bridget Hardy and Bernice Freeman.
Commissioner William Eagan cast the only "no" vote. He wanted to see a stronger statement endorsing protection for sexual orientation.

"I don't think there was real meat to this," he said of the statement.
One commissioner, Ed Henry, was absent.

Commissioner Gonzalez said: "I see this as a seed, and we will grow from this. It doesn't mean we can't be out in the community listening to the community and educating the community."

South Bend resident Rhonda Redman, who is gay, attended the meeting and said at the end: "If the commission is taking a baby step, at least it is a step forward. I'd like to thank the commissioners for finding its way through this."

Bible-based logic misses the point

2008-05-08T07:49:00.000-04:00

SBT VOP
1/18/05

The chairman and one of the commissioners on the South Bend Human Rights Commission are against gays being protected from discrimination in housing and jobs because gay relationships are sinful (Tribune, Dec.12). The question which begs to be asked is, what about gays not in relationships?

I find it interesting that they have no qualms about heterosexual sinners having human rights under the law. Using their Bible-based logic, all men and women having sexual relations out of wedlock, adulterers, unwed mothers, tax cheats, rapists, murderers, wife-beaters and child-abusers should be denied fair treatment in housing and jobs.

And to really follow the big book of sins, you have to include people who eat pork and shellfish, wear cotton/polyester blends and use divination and magic for personal gain, along with farmers who rotate their crops.

The people who use the Bible as justification for denying anyone rights through the ages have always managed to skip the teachings of Jesus, especially the one that says let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Rick Leers, Niles

Delicate issues must be debated

2008-05-07T11:43:00.001-04:00

SBT VOP
12/31/04

In a free society that recognizes the importance of individual rights, it is highly desirable to have free and open discussion about controversial issues. The question of whether sexual orientation should be added to the South Bend ordinance involving the protection of citizens against discrimination certainly falls into this category.

However, for discussion to be fruitful, it is necessary to separate facts from opinion. In his article on this subject (Voice, Dec. 8), Chuck Strantz correctly cites the appropriate South Bend statute and agrees that race, color, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry should not be the basis for discrimination because these people have no choice in the matter. He argues that sexual orientation is a deliberate choice that should not be protected by law. This alone could be the subject of serious debate, but leave that to another time.

One interesting omission occurs here. Strantz omits one category of a protected class contained in the statute, religion. There seems to be little room to argue that religion is not a choice. Therefore, logically, Strantz must argue that religion should be removed form the protected class or that sexual orientation should be included.

I would suggest that Strantz cannot have it both ways.

William Eagan, South Bend

Eight-member commission divided on gay rights

2008-05-07T11:39:00.001-04:00

Human rights group discussed a possible ordinance

By JOSEPH DITS
Tribune Staff Writer
12/12/04

In August, it was clear that all eight members of the South Bend Human Rights Commission wouldn't agree on the issue that was being raised in the community.

So they put it off -- until Saturday, when at last, they talked.

Would they as a group have anything to say about a proposed city ordinance that would protect gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, just as people are protected for their race, sex and religion?

The commissioners, after all, would have to decide such cases.

They are divided, and at the heart of their division is faith.

The commission's chairman, Raphael "Ray" Thomas Sr., is also pastor of Faith Temple Church of God in Christ, where his faith dictates that gay relationships are sinful. Fellow commissioner Ed Henry believes the same.

The two believe people shouldn't be mistreated because of their sexual orientation, but they don't believe this group should be a protected class.

Member Isabel Gonzalez said it's the commission's role to educate the South Bend Common Council on the issue but not to write its ordinances.

Their discussion came in the midst of a retreat for the commissioners at Fernwood Botanic Garden and Nature Center, where they spoke heart-to-heart about their views on sin and mistreatment.

The ordinance has yet to be written and introduced by Common Council member Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd.

In talking about it, Commissioner Gail McGuire, who is bisexual, realized, "I would love to see us support this ordinance, but I don't think that we'll reach a consensus."

And commission attorney Aladean DeRose advised the group that if they pass a resolution with a split vote, "The community reads that as dissension."

So they focused on scripting a resolution with the philosophical beliefs they share. They avoided the issue of whether the ordinance should or shouldn't exist.

They'll wait until their January meeting to refine the words and vote on it. One member was missing from Saturday's discussion: Bernice Freeman.

Still in a rough form, their statement says that the commission is concerned about the rights of gays and transgendered people. It encourages the Common Council to explore the mistreatment of that group of people and to work with the commission if it creates an ordinance.

"It's watered down and worthless," said member William Eagan.

"But," said member GlendaRae Hernandez, who also favored a stronger resolution, "it puts us on the record."

Commission Director Lonnie Douglas said, if any, he'd prefer a city ordinance apart from the current one. Federal and state laws provide remedies, or follow-up actions, for cases of discrimination based on race, gender and religion but offer no remedies for sexual orientation, he said.

"Logistically for me it's a problem," Douglas said.

The commission could avoid the whole issue by remaining silent. The Common Council could vote on the ordinance without the commission's opinion. But Thomas and other members feel their voices are critical.

"I don't think we are on the radar in the South Bend community," Thomas said. "We should be more of an educational outreach and make a stand, especially with controversial issues. The only way we're going to do that is if we step up to the microphone."

Accounts sought of bias against gays

2008-05-06T16:28:00.005-04:00

Meeting draws people who support addition to city's discrimination ban.

By MARGARET FOSMOE
Tribune Staff Writer
10/14/04

SOUTH BEND -- Some local residents are working to ban discrimination in South Bend against people who are gay or transgendered, and they want to hear from individuals who have experienced such bias firsthand.

The challenge in gathering personal stories is the fact that many homosexuals in the community keep their orientation hidden, said Rhonda Redman, a gay South Bend resident.

"There are so many people in this area that are in the closet, that are afraid to come out," she said during a meeting Wednesday night at the LaSalle Area Neighborhood Association.

The meeting was scheduled to gather public opinion about a proposal to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the ordinance governing the South Bend Human Rights Commission. The current ordinance prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, disability and national origin, but does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals or transgendered individuals.

Common Council Member Charlotte Pfeifer, D-2nd, is gathering input from community residents in order to determine the extent of such discrimination.

The measure would apply to bias against people "because of who they are or because of who they appear to be," Pfeifer said. That means it also would protect people who are straight but are treated unfairly by others who think they are gay, she said.

A local group called South Bend Equality is conducting interviews with local residents who wish to provide evidence of such discrimination. Information is being accepted from residents throughout the region, not just in South Bend.

To volunteer for an interview, call Saint Mary's College psychology professor Catherine Pittman at (574) 284-4533.

Wednesday's meeting drew an audience of nine people. No one spoke in opposition to the measure.

"My biggest concern is we aren't getting any opposition. I think this is going way under the radar," said Tricia Bayman, a gay woman who lives in South Bend. She wonders why opponents haven't spoken out.

Pfeifer wants to hear from individuals or local groups who think the measure is a bad idea. She can be reached at (574) 235-5983 or via e-mail at: cpfeifer@ci.south-bend.in.us.

Another public meeting about the proposal will be at 6 p.m. Oct. 28 at the Near Westside Neighborhood Partnership Center, 205 N. Sadie St.

Pfeifer said the effort then will take a break through the Nov. 2 election, but that more community gatherings will be scheduled in the future.

History of GLBT-related Events in Indiana

2008-05-06T14:13:00.004-04:00

(Note that there is a long history of communities and businesses affirming GLBT rights in our state)

1983
A statewide voter registration effort results in 5,000 registration by November 1984

The Indiana State Nurses Association adopts both a gay/lesbian nondiscrimination policy and a resolution supporting gay/lesbian equal rights legislation.

1984

"Gay Presence on the Circle" gatherings are conducted in downtown Indianapolis in response to a flood of complaints and two documented charges of physical abuse by members of the Indianapolis Police Department. Activist efforts culminate in a Labor Day weekend rally. Mayor William Hudnut responds with a public letter making a nondiscrimination commitment.

1985-86

The State of Indiana makes its first-ever grant to a gay/lesbian organization to be used for AIDS education.

1987-89

Two statewide AIDS organizations and the Citizens Action Council are established.
Indiana is represented on the board of directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

1990s

The Indiana Civil Rights Commission is reshaped with the removal of commission members with antigay sentiments.

Indiana is represented on a White House advisory group created by President Bill Clinton.

An effort in the Indiana General Assembly to pass legislation eliminating the adoption rights of gays and lesbians is defeated.

1993

Lafayette becomes the first Indiana municipality to include sexual orientation in its human-rights ordinance, followed in that same year by West Lafayette and Bloomington.

1998

Annual Prayer Gatherings commence at the Statehouse, attracting over 200 people, to raise awareness of and call for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

2000

Indiana is represented on the Board of Directors of the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition.

A strong lobbying effort results in gays and lesbians being included in the landmark Hate Crimes Reporting Bill passed by the Indiana General Assembly.

2001

Governor O'Bannon signs a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the state's workforce, covering almost 35,000 employees.
Indiana University extends benefits to domestic partners of LGBT faculty and staff, followed by Purdue University.

2002

The first statewide organization advocating on behalf of transgendered people is formed in Indiana.

Fort Wayne and Michigan City add sexual orientation to their cities' human rights ordinance.

The board of the United Way of Monroe County votes unanimously to adopt a sexual orientation-inclusive non-discrimination policy for all member agencies.

Secretary of State candidate, Todd Rokita, issues a statement affirming that all people, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, should receive equal treatment under the law.

2006

Indianapolis votes to include sexual orientation and gender identity in its Human Rights Ordinance. This process is mandatory.

Who SBE is and Why we're here

2008-05-06T13:49:00.001-04:00

South Bend Equality was formed 5 years ago to bring equal protection to all residents of South Bend. The goal of South Bend Equality is to amend our Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity in order to prevent discrimination on this basis and to allow our residents to have recourse if they believe this type of discrimination has occurred.

Currently, it is legal in South Bend for an employer to fire an employee, a landlord to refuse housing and the city to restrict access to public accommodations solely on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In fact, since our original ordinance includes perception, it is not even necessary for one to actually be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Being perceived as such is enough for an individual to be LEGALLY discriminated against. A heterosexual could just as easily be fired because their employer perceives them to be gay and they too would have no recourse under the law.

This policy has caused great harm to individuals and families living and working in our community.

This practice is not only unfair to residents of South Bend but it is also bad for business. In "The Rise of the Creative Class"' Richard Florida reports that areas with acceptance of gays tend to have higher rates of innovation and economic growth. We want our city to be a 21st century community that moves beyond unfair discrimination. We don't want to continue to lose talented and diverse individuals (gay or straight) who would contribute to our community.

South Bend Equality recognizes and respects the needs of the religious community. For this reason, we have supported, from the beginning, an exemption for churches and religious organizations. This is not a religious issue. It is simply a matter of fairness and good business.

The time has come for this outdated practice of discrimination to stop. It is our desire that South Bend reaches it's full potential by becoming a safe and fair community for all of our residents and families.