Council adopts gay rights ordinance
8:45 PM
By Lynn Zerschling Journal staff writer | Posted: Monday, March 17, 2008
SIOUX CITY -- With two additional votes, the City Council adopted the revised human rights ordinance Monday to mirror state law that has added sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes for citizens.
As with last week the vote was 4-1. Mayor Mike Hobart and Councilmen Dave Ferris, Brent Hoffman and Jim Rixner voted to bring the city's ordinance into compliance with state law. Councilman Aaron Rochester again voted against it, again proposing the measure be sent to the advisory Public Policy Committee.
In finally adopting the measure, Ferris asked City Attorney Andrew Mai to investigate whether the city could amend the human rights ordinance to clarify what "faith-based organizations" are covered by the measure. His comments came after Linda Holub brought up the issue in her second appearance before the council in two weeks.
"The definition is very broad," she said. "I fear those organizations will not be exempt from this. ... Several organizations are not part of a church, but are faith-based organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, pregnancy organizations and Youth for Christ."
Mai said, "Bona fide religions are defined by case law. We cannot add organizations that aren't already mentioned in state law."
Holub replied, "I find that objectionable and urge you not to proceed."
Mai said state law would have to be changed first.
Hobart said of the ordinance, "This is not etched in stone."
Holub, who opposes adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the law, said without the amendment, those non-church related organizations would be required to attend sensitivity training. She also suggested the Human Rights Commission appointments should be made by party affiliation.
Hoffman said he opposed making that change because of the nonpartisan nature of their work. "It's difficult to get people to step forward and serve," he said of the 11-member commission.
Rochester said, "Without losing any funding, it would behoove us to look at this a little more before rushing into it. I feel there's a lot of unanswered questions. I feel a lot of scenarios could come up."
His motion to forward the matter to the Public Policy Committee drew no support.
"To send this to the Public Policy Committee is a disservice to the Human Rights Commission, saying we don't value the work they do," Rixner stated. "I also think this is the right thing to do. We should not be discriminating against anyone for any reason at any time."
Hoffman said, "The point is the state law is what it is. We need to follow the city attorney's advice."
Ferris again said, "I was very opposed to adopting it into our ordinance," when he voted against adding the language in 2004. At that time the state had not included the sexual orientation/gender identity language. "I'm not going to put the city of Sioux City in harm's way. It's a battle we cannot win."
Two other people opposed adopting the sexual orientation/gender identity language.
Virginia Anderson, commission chairman, pointed out, "We have worked on this (rewriting) for the last year. We have a diverse commission -- some are against this, but voted for it because we had done our research."
At the commission's meeting March 6, the commission majority voted to recommend the council adopt state law by reference. The one member who cast the no vote did so because of his concern over impact the law would have on faith-based organizations.
Lynn Zerschling may be reached at (712) 293-4202 or lynn.zerschling@lee.net
As with last week the vote was 4-1. Mayor Mike Hobart and Councilmen Dave Ferris, Brent Hoffman and Jim Rixner voted to bring the city's ordinance into compliance with state law. Councilman Aaron Rochester again voted against it, again proposing the measure be sent to the advisory Public Policy Committee.
In finally adopting the measure, Ferris asked City Attorney Andrew Mai to investigate whether the city could amend the human rights ordinance to clarify what "faith-based organizations" are covered by the measure. His comments came after Linda Holub brought up the issue in her second appearance before the council in two weeks.
"The definition is very broad," she said. "I fear those organizations will not be exempt from this. ... Several organizations are not part of a church, but are faith-based organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, pregnancy organizations and Youth for Christ."
Mai said, "Bona fide religions are defined by case law. We cannot add organizations that aren't already mentioned in state law."
Holub replied, "I find that objectionable and urge you not to proceed."
Mai said state law would have to be changed first.
Hobart said of the ordinance, "This is not etched in stone."
Holub, who opposes adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the law, said without the amendment, those non-church related organizations would be required to attend sensitivity training. She also suggested the Human Rights Commission appointments should be made by party affiliation.
Hoffman said he opposed making that change because of the nonpartisan nature of their work. "It's difficult to get people to step forward and serve," he said of the 11-member commission.
Rochester said, "Without losing any funding, it would behoove us to look at this a little more before rushing into it. I feel there's a lot of unanswered questions. I feel a lot of scenarios could come up."
His motion to forward the matter to the Public Policy Committee drew no support.
"To send this to the Public Policy Committee is a disservice to the Human Rights Commission, saying we don't value the work they do," Rixner stated. "I also think this is the right thing to do. We should not be discriminating against anyone for any reason at any time."
Hoffman said, "The point is the state law is what it is. We need to follow the city attorney's advice."
Ferris again said, "I was very opposed to adopting it into our ordinance," when he voted against adding the language in 2004. At that time the state had not included the sexual orientation/gender identity language. "I'm not going to put the city of Sioux City in harm's way. It's a battle we cannot win."
Two other people opposed adopting the sexual orientation/gender identity language.
Virginia Anderson, commission chairman, pointed out, "We have worked on this (rewriting) for the last year. We have a diverse commission -- some are against this, but voted for it because we had done our research."
At the commission's meeting March 6, the commission majority voted to recommend the council adopt state law by reference. The one member who cast the no vote did so because of his concern over impact the law would have on faith-based organizations.
Lynn Zerschling may be reached at (712) 293-4202 or lynn.zerschling@lee.net
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 7 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
JWK wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:51 PM:
JOHN POLAKA wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:10 PM:
Fat and Ugly wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:30 PM:
Is the council going to work on adding my condition to its human rights ordinance?
No one really knows if another is gay or lesbian.
Now the boy scouts are worried about sexual orientation.
What has the world come to?
I remember when gay ment happy.
How about doing something worthwhile, city council? "
Barb wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:22 AM:
ees wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:10 AM:
This is an abomination on the magnitude of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It is also too vague and as so is a violation of the Separation of Church and State. "