Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Link (http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/15014333.htm)

The City Council turned down a measure that would have protected gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people under the city's anti-discrimination code.

The 5-4 defeat of the sexual orientation and gender identity protections followed a four-hour hearing Monday. Leaders of South Bend Equality, a group that pushed for the measure, said they would continue to promote the issue.

this is a real disapointment!

From the article:

QuoteCouncil members who opposed the measure said it would create a protected class.

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

"...create a protected class."  Well, DUH!  Unfortunately because of our culture the class NEEDS and DESERVES protection!

"I don't believe anyone is saying we support discrimination . . ."  No one may be saying it but that's exactly the message I'm getting!

this just pisses me off to the extreme!
helen

Quote from: HelenW on July 11, 2006, 04:04:03 PM
"I don't believe anyone is saying we support discrimination . . ."  No one may be saying it but that's exactly the message I'm getting!

Lol.  So true.  Actions speak louder than words.

Melissa

Although I don't completely understand the US system of government I can't understand why these protections are not guaranteed under your constitution.  We are talking about basic human rights here and basic human rights should never be voted on.

Steph

Because the country is run by George Bush, who loves to discriminate.

Melissa

hopefully you can change that next ime round

Steph

Yeah, no kidding.

Melissa

:)

Oh no...that sucks!!! >:(



tinkerbell :icon_chick:

Quote from: Steph on July 11, 2006, 06:11:05 PM
Although I don't completely understand the US system of government I can't understand why these protections are not guaranteed under your constitution.  We are talking about basic human rights here and basic human rights should never be voted on.

Steph

Steph,

Both the ACLU and my attorney take the stand that the 1967 Civil Rights legislation actually does protect the LGBT community.  The problem is that the Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Constitution and they take a very literal view nowadays.  This is the reaction after the 1960's when desegregation happened by court order, not Congressional or legislation.  This struck a nerve with Congress.  Question to nominees ever since have included the topic of "legislating from the bench."

For the LGBT community to receive protection under the Constituion, the legislation and/or amendment must specifically address the LGBT community. 

Chaunte

And before anyone blames George W, the fault should be laid at the feet of Bill Clinton, George H Bush and Ronald Reagan.  It is their nominees who are on the bench today, not W's.

No, I am not excusing George W, but he should only be blamed for the things he HAS done - or failed to act upon.

If we had decent presidents running the country, then this could change.  The problem is, there aren't enough consecutive good presidents in a row.  Geroge W. bush put a lot of discriminatory people on staff.

Melissa

Hello Chaunte.

You would know.  Personally I believe that when it comes to human rights issues that if you are human then it's your right no matter what.  These personal rights and freedoms should never be subject to a vote.  i know that we have a couple of Conservative members of parliament who would give their eye teeth to challenge our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Steph

Quote from: Chaunte on July 11, 2006, 06:58:02 PM
And before anyone blames George W, the fault should be laid at the feet of Bill Clinton, George H Bush and Ronald Reagan.  It is their nominees who are on the bench today, not W's.

No, I am not excusing George W, but he should only be blamed for the things he HAS done - or failed to act upon.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito were both appointed to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush and are perhaps the most conservative justices to date, worse than even Scalia. Alito has written in the past that his goal is to reverse Roe vs Wade, the bastion of reproductive rights, but was appointed to the court in spite of Democratic opposition. The appointment of Alito tipped the balance of the Supreme Court from a mixture of liberal, center-right, and conservative justices to a nearly solid conservative majority. Which means that potentially, the worst is yet to come.

With all George W. Bush has done, he really deserves his reputation, and more.

Quote from: Kaitlyn on July 11, 2006, 07:16:43 PM
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito were both appointed to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush and are perhaps the most conservative justices to date, worse than even Scalia. Alito has written in the past that his goal is to reverse Roe vs Wade, the bastion of reproductive rights, but was appointed to the court in spite of Democratic opposition. The appointment of Alito tipped the balance of the Supreme Court from a mixture of liberal, center-right, and conservative justices to a nearly solid conservative majority. Which means that potentially, the worst is yet to come.

With all George W. Bush has done, he really deserves his reputation, and more.

Kaitlyn,

Fair enough.  My error and I stand corrected.

Chaunte