Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> areas of personal preference. legislating in these areas of personal preference <br /> would indicate protection of other groups of people should be included, i.e., <br />. various marital preferences, family size, psychotherapy preference, or smoking <br /> preference. Statements were made that it is a choice of behavior and those <br /> choosing that type of living should take the responsibility for their behavior. <br /> Others were concerned that the amendment would increase cases of child molesta- <br /> tion and encourage young people to follow the same life style. Also, it was <br /> suggested if Council passed the amendment it would lend legitimacy to homosexual <br /> behavior, and it would be unwise for government to legislate in such a private <br /> controversial concern. Concerns were expressed that homosexuals were organizing <br /> to infiltrate the school system and to provide sex education that would set <br /> forth homosexuality as a sexual life style. Others stated that human rights <br /> were very much a concern, but they wanted to live their life the way they wanted <br /> to and did not want others to force them to accept a way of life that was <br /> contrary to their beliefs. A concern was expressed regarding homosexual teachers <br /> and their influence on younger children. Some opponents quoted passages from <br /> the Bible in support of their stand against homosexuality, and expressed it as <br /> being an unnatural, perverse sexual -activity. It was suggested that homosexu- <br /> ality is a learned trait and it could be unlearned; that modern medicine says it <br /> is not in the range of normal behavior. Results of various petitions circulated, <br /> telephone polls, and Register-Guard polls were cited, showing an indication of <br /> of general community disapproval of the passage of this amendment. The Council <br /> was urged to reject the amendment on the basis that it did not reflect the <br /> wishes of the majority of the community. <br /> Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony <br /> presented. <br />e C.B. 1560--Concerning Human Rights; amending Sections 4.615, 4.620, <br /> 4.625, 4.630, 4.635, and 4.645 of the Code, 1971; and <br /> declaring an emergency was read by council bill number <br /> and title only, there being no Council member present <br /> requesting .it be read in full. <br /> Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read <br /> the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous <br /> consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at <br /> this time. <br /> Mr. lieuallen said he was going to support the amendment for many of the reasons <br /> stated by the proponents. He felt the amendment was consistent with the oath <br /> Councilors took to support the constitution, but that it was difficult because <br /> of the inherent contradiction between majority and minority wishes. He felt <br /> Council should focus on the basis on the process, noting if Council were to make <br /> an exception in protecting certain human rights it would seriously undermine <br /> that process. He felt Council should then consider the amendment within that <br /> process of the constitution and protection for human rights. He said minorities <br /> by nature are always unpopular, but that should be resolved through the process <br /> and not by how people feel. He urged Council to consider approval of the amendment. <br />- <br /> 10/24/77--7 <br /> 7~q <br />