10/24/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ~--- 1 I Mayor Keller declared a ten-minute recess. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Li~uallen, to appeal the e decision of the Chair on the ruling of debate time. Motion carried with Haws, Bradley', Delay, lieuallen, and Smith voting aye; Obie, Williams, and Hamel voting ~o. In continuing the discussion favoring the amendment, Mike O'Brien 5085 Nectar Way; Carole Queen, 906 West 4th; and Dominick Vetri, Route 1 Gap Road, Brownsville; reiterated some of the earlier remarks made and gave first-hand experiences of discrimination. They sai d the proposed amendment woul d not protect ill ega 1 or offensive acts, only that it would prevent unfair treatment. The fear of public knowledge of their homosexu~lity was expressed, with the resultant loss of jobs and living spaces. They also reiterated it was a basic human right for protection, and they were not asking for rights other than the protection other people had. Those fears could be minimized and life could be less risky if the proposed amendment were passed. Homosexuals were stated as being a variety cross section of society, citizens of the community of all types of work and all walks of life. Mayor Keller noted the proponents had used 13 additional minutes, so an hour and 13 minutes would be allotted to the opponents. Those speaking in opposition were the following: Representative Bill Rogers, Vida, Oregon Dr. Sterling G. Ellsworth, 2237 Cal Young Road, clinical psychologist .e Walter L. Taff, 25292 Perkins Road, Veneta Eva Adkins, Junction City, Chairperson of I WILL Maureen Gieber, 3147 Sorrel Way Donna Fisher, 25687 Fleck Road Lynn Greene, 1333 Oak Patch Road, No. 1 Robert Russell, 506 Sunshine Acres Dale Morris, 298 Hawthorne Avenue Joe Ponder, 2615 River Road Their opposition was based on their concern for the welfare of society and this community in particular. They bel i eved that there was ,no way homosexual s 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 the majority of the community. Also stated was the belief that the practice of homosexuality was demoralizing and adoption of the amendment would force discrimination against employers and landlords, in that they would be required to rent or hire people they did not want. It was stated the rights of the minority should not be sacrificed for the rights of the majority, as under a democracy the majority rules; a suggestion was made to send the matter to the voters and let the majority decide. Dr. Ellsworth, a clinical psychologist, said there should be a difference made between discrimination in areas where people cannot control (i.e., sex, race, national origin), as opposed to legislation in e 10/24/77--6 ..,qg