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.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Firms rush to comply with gay-rights law
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."
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
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.
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
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
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."
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
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
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
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Delicate issues must be debated
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
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
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."
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."
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Accounts sought of bias against gays
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.
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
(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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
