11/27/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The thrust of their testimony was to call attention~to the need for specific laws to promote education in the community on homosexuality. Other cities (Seattle, East Lansing) and other governmental agencies, they said, have enacted legislation or adopted . . policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual preference; considerable effort has ,been put forth in this community since public hearings before the Human Rights Commis- sion to educate the general public with regard to homosexuality; and there is substantial , .. evidence that discrimination does exist in Eugene. Postition papers presented by psychologists have identified homosexuality as a social behavior rather than a physical disease; there is no potential harm for society in general from homosexual (gays), they are not violent or criminal; the amendment would give a segment of the community the opportunity to develop individual lives openly and without fear of reprisal. A psycho- logical fear because of the past secretive nature of homosexuality has resulted in few cases of actual discrimination being reported. Sexual preference was not a matter of being right or wrong, rather the question is whether individuals have the right to live open and honest lives. Discrimination forces homosexuals into economic, psycho- logical, and social insecurity and thereby alienates a segment of the community. Adoption of the amendment would be in line with the present trend of legislation at the State and Federal level to protect the human rights of gay people. Present judg- ment of potential employers of gay people is based on prejudice and requiring employment of known homosexuals could disspell that prejudice. It was stated that many beliefs held with regard to homosexuality are false. I Numerous documents and petitions in favor of the amendment were presented for the record, including a fact sheet on homosexuality presented by the Gay People's Alliance, . a position paper of the Board of Social Issues approved by the Board of the Oregon Psychological Association, and letters from the Oregon Federation of Teachers and Fr. Frank Wilks, pastor of St. Thomas More Parish. A short recess was taken. Speaking in opposition to the amendment were: Rudy Herr, 5255 Donald Street Vernon Hicks, 5281 Cynthia Court, Springfield Dr. Sterling Ellsworth, 401 East 10th Avenue, clinical psychologist John Polston, 2196 DeVos Street Edward L. Cook, Route 2, Box 151" Springfield Lewis Peters, minority relations specialist for the city of Eugene Bessie and Don Ridenour, 3768 West 11th Avenue Ken Myers, 6930 Orchid Lane, Springfield R. G. Miller, 120 Edgewood Drive A. Mr. Shurtliff living in Springfield Bill Richards, 1096 B Street, Springfield Their opposition was based on their concern for the welfare of society and this com- . munity in particular. They believed there was no way homosexuals could be encouraged and still keep the present standards of morality familiar to the community, and that the matter was brought up by a few people and not by demand of a majority of the com- munity. They stressed their belief that the practice of homosexuality was demoraliz- ing and that the adoption of the amendment would force discrimination ~gainst employers and landlords in that they would be required to rent to or hire people they did not want. Undependability of homosexuals as employes was cited, as well as loss of money when they were employed without knowledge of their life style. Dr. Ellsworth, a clinical psychologist, said if the amendment was adopted it should be broadened to include alcoholics, criminals, and others with what society considers abnormal social and psychological behavior patterns. Others were concerned that the amendment would in- crease cases of child molestation and encourage young people to follow the same life ! style. Lewis Peters, minority relations specialist, asked how in meeting his responsi- bility for investigation of complaints of discrimination he would determine whether a person was a homosexual. Several opponents quoted passages from the Bible in support of their stand against homosexuality and noted that many homosexuals are not themselves pleased with their life .style~. The Council was urged to reject the amendment on the basis that it did not reflect'the wishes of the majority of the community. In rebuttal, Jim Hood, 934 West 4th Avenue, reminded the Council that many of the con- cerns raised were addressed by the fact sheet previously presented by the Gay People's . Alliance. He said the proposed amendment would not protect il~egal or offensive acts, only that it would prevent unfair treatment. He added that the Council should be aware of the mute testimony from people who were not present because of fear of reprisal should it become known they were homosexuals. This in itself, he said, should point up the discriminatory practices. He urged that the Council make its decision on the basis of facts rather than emotional and politcal considerations. 3<03 li/27/73 - 2