A Victory for Common Sense & Priorities in Fort Wayne
Posted by Micah Clark in Fort WayneBy Micah Clark
he Fort Wayne City Council officially rejected a proposed ordinance last night which would have granted special behavior-based protections to people with gender identity disorders. The ordinance was a defeat for cross dressers, homosexuals and transgender activists seeking governmental endorsement of their chosen identity and actions.
(People are generally free to do as they please in private, but expecting the government to publicly applaud their unusual sexual decisions with legislation goes too far.)
Three weeks ago the Council refused to even debate the ordinance which was brought up for discussion by its author, Councilor Karen Goldner. Several homosexual activist groups outside of Fort Wayne had been pushing the ordinance. In fact, Indiana Equality in Indianapolis has received large contributions from leftist groups like the George Soros funded Tides Foundation and the Gill Foundation led by homosexual activist billionaire Tim Gill of Colorado specifically to promote these kinds of radical city ordinances throughout Indiana.
The ordinance raised a lot of controversy and concern from citizens and business owners about the problems men dressed as women in the workplace, or in a fitness center locker room or in a public restroom could cause if the city tried to force public accommodation of an extreme fringe group’s behavior.
Goldner reintroduced her ordinance last night after homosexual groups across the state had poured e-mails into the council over the weekend calling for the council to support their political demands. Thankfully, the council knew that there were far more important issues facing Indiana’s second largest city. The ordinance was quickly rejected on a 5-4 vote with all five Republicans voting “no” and the four Democrat councilors voting “yes”.
AFA of Indiana helped provide information to the council about what “gender identity” and homosexual behavior-based ordinances really mean and how they can threaten the rights of business owners, parents, children and religious freedoms. However, it was the action of local Fort Wayne residents expressing their concerns to the council and showing up at the hearings that really defeated the controversial ordinance. Thank you to all those in Fort Wayne who spoke up and took a stand for common sense and good governance by opposing this far left political effort in a town that has often been called “the city of churches.”
Micah Clark is the Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana.
No related posts.
Entries (RSS)
I happen to agree with Virginia in this regard, however I find that the GLBT "lobby," if you will, is using the term "biological" to describe such things as the separation of sexes vis-a-vis bathrooms and (in some cases) school sports teams. I find this to be a contradiction in the GBLT stance that is not serving their cause well.
Further, the 5 councilors that voted against this are not "a bunch of ignorant fools" but rather they are intelligent individuals that made a decision that is based on the input of those they represent, either in their home districts or at large.
Ms. Clark is certainly using this forum to editorialize her beliefs that homosexuality is indeed a lifestyle choice. For Virginia to assume that Ms Clark's stance is the stance of the coincil is a short sighted.
Orientation is not a chosen decision! What a bunch of ignorant fools these councilmen are!
Is it possible that Ms Goldner has pushed this to the point that she will be a one-term Fort Wayne Common Councilperson? I personally feel this would be a loss for Fort Wayne (I admire Karen, but she may have caused this by her single-mindedness).
According to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association (known in psychological community as the DSM IV) Gender Identity Disorder is a treatable condition involving gender confusion, to which this ordinance clearly catered. GID is defined as impacting people who feel their gender
identity conflicts with their birth sex or with the gender role associated with that sex have gender dysphoria, a mental disorder resulting in abnormal depression and discontent about their gender.
Hundreds of people have been successfully treated for gender confusion issues and lived happily under their biological gender determined at birth. Scores of psychological experts have treated such individuals to overcome their transgender behaviors. For example, Drs. Kenneth Zucker and Susan Bradley, (authors of the book Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents.) “It has been our experience that a sizable number of children and their families achieve a great deal of change. In these cases, the GID resolves fully, and nothing in the children’s behavior or fantasy suggests that gender-identity issues remain problematic … All things considered, we take the position that in such cases a clinician should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.”
That is why this is described as a behavioral choice. If you would like to read the story of someone who was cured of his gender confusion issues after having lived as a woman for many years, go to this link:
http://pfox.org/Former_Transgender_Tells_His_Stor...
John, you may be right. Comments that I heard were that Ms. Golder refused to modify the measure to gain more support for introduction. Of the five who voted against introduction at least two are open to compromise and finding a way to benefit all involved without causing significant problems for the city and for employers. What I saw were two perspectives that could not well communicate with other to find common ground.
Micah – with all sincere respect, you are confusing gender identity disorder with homosexuality; the latter being removed from the DSM in 1986.
While your point about the ordinance "clearly catering" to people with gender identity disorder is somewhat salient, it is only a small portion of what this ordinance tried to accomplish.
For someone to conclude that homosexuality is a treatable condition based On the fact that GID remains in the DSM is to misunderstand the psychology behind both conditions.
I agree with you that the ordinance being turned down is a "victory for common sense," however I feel you are undermining the credibility of your position by presenting homosexuality as a lifestyle choice when the mainstream psychological community (opinion as presented through the DSM) has not agreed with you for over two decades.
Sexual orientation probably isn't a choice, but so what? How society deals with this issue IS a choice. Describing the distinction between male and femal, in bathroom facilities and the like, as "biological discrimination" is absurd and, in this instance, the City Council chose appropriately.
It should be determined which bathrooms transgendered people are expected to use. There have been cases in which the person was arrested for using the bathroom of their birth gender, and there have been cases in which they have been arrested for using the bathroom of their new gender.
While I do admire the spirit in which this ordinance was intended, there could have been untended consequences. An employer might respond to a transvestite’s insistence on wearing a skirt to work by requiring that all employees, male and female, wear pants to work.
Regardless what the DSM or the "mainstream psychological community" says, homosexuality is a sexual "preference" plain and simple. If your species (be it human or animal) is to survive, it must reproduce or perish. Heterosexuals reproduce while obviously homosexuals do not. We were all born with the hardware necessary to reproduce for that simple reason, to perpetuate the species.
A pleasant bi-product of reproduction is of course the physical sensation inherent with the act, and I would submit people choose of their own free will how and where to replicate that sensation. It's a choice they make based upon their personal preferences.
I (and I believe the majority of people) don't really care how consenting adults choose to acheive an orgasm but you can't deny the scientific reality you were born with the hardware to either impregnate or be pregnant, period.
Your sexual preference doesn't bestow any "special" rights to you, it simply makes you different than 95% of your peers by virtue of how you like to acheive an orgasm. Not that there's anything wrong with that (props to Seinfeld).
Karen Goldner snuck in on council as pretending to be a moderate when in fact she is a flaming liberal. Trying to force this nonsense down our throats, along with the BS speed limit deal is a waste of our time. She has brought nothing to the table during her short term and has done us 2nd district people a diservice. She is one term and done. And also a big jeers to the other democratic council people who voted on partyy lines. You truly are not serving the people of your district. I hope the citizens wisen up and vote some of these career city council people out of here. You are not earning your 30,000 dollar a year part time job with benefits.
First, I would like to say that I am proud of City Council. Not because I'm a close-minded-neanderthal homophobe. But rather, this is the first time, in a long time, that Council has rejected bad legislation begin forced upon them by a lobbying group and through a Councilperson that has been recruited for this purpose. Do we need an ordinance like this? Perhaps. Do we need this flawed ordinance? No. As Mitch Harper so aptly pointed out, other Indiana cities have similar ordinances which seem accomplish their goal of protecting others rights but do not place unfair and unrealistic burdens on businesses or government. The blame here does not lie with Council, the blame here lies with the maker of bad legislation, legislation that is only viewed by it's makers as an avenue to show their power and influence over others. And isn't that what this ordinance was supposed to prevent…..?
Tim – A well written and thoughtful post. I know there are examples of homosexuality among "lower" life forms (squirrels or somesuch), but as I look to find a valid citation it's difficult to avoid finding evidence that isn't biased by a clear pro-gay agenda.
I agree that there is a key physical aspect here of 'interlocking parts,' describing the complexities of sexual attraction and physical reproduction as if it were as simple as plumbing a toilet.
I think your position fails to recognize the social and cultural aspects of sex. Throughout the animal kingdom the 'act' has no purpose aside from the procreation of the species. However in the case of higher species (arguably, humans), the desire for sexual gratification is not equal to an instinctive desire to procreate. To suggest that the nuanced and highly complex nature of attraction between two humans has not been influenced by the millions of years of cultural and social evolution.
Pez…You say "To suggest that the nuanced and highly complex nature of attraction between two humans has not been influenced by the millions of years of cultural and social evolution." actually makes my point, that being that the behavior (homosexuality) is not something you are born with, rather it is a learned behavior by (as you point out) cultural and social evolution.