HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 7, 1991 (107)CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 7, 1991
LODI CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
CONCERNS OPPOSES AB 101
CC -28 Mr. Ken Owen, Director, Lodi Christian Community Concerns
addressed the City Council speaking in opposition to
Assembly Bill 101 and asking that the City Council take a
position of opposition to the subject bill. The City Clerk
was directed to place this matter on the August 21, 1991
agenda for City Council consideration.
tl
JMFiY 7-91 TUC 15:: ~FUL; DCS LANCASTER
City of Lancaster
44933 North Fern Avenue
Lancasier. California 93534
805-723-6000
May 7, 1991
Honorable Pete Wilson
Governor
State of California
State Capitol, First Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Wilson
13 °l4E106'.S' S
P.02
cRSTB1q, c
4
y
9'�x+rro'? V_
Rev Kt ry W HYn:ns
Mat -
AW.?
at -AW. RoJ'o
c&L+raaan
Geu"O 1—ta Roof
CW -16 .rift
George S. TStw-aiis
carom: m
• • cly A:arx�rr
Two bills, Assembly Bill 101 and Assembly Bill 167, aro presently working
their way through the -legislative process rind are expected to soon appear
on your desk. We would u rg a you to veto these bills because we suncarely
believe that the changes in I a w they propose threaten the traditional family
unit and traditional family values.
7he traditional family is and has been the foundation of o,.r society. We
fear that the extension of extraordinary privileges to behavior -based groups,
as these two measures propose, poses an unacceptable threat to the
traditional family unit and traditional family. values. TIxe housing
privileges proposed to be extended under Assembly Bill 101 exceed the
protections afforded families with children!Legitimizing marriages
between and among members of the same sex is a concept alien to those
who embrace traditional family values.
In support of traditional family -values, cn May 6,1:981, the Lancaster City
Council. voted unaniinotisly to express its vigorous opposition to Assembly
Bill 101 and Assembly Bill 167. Because of the expected negative affects
these m res will have. on the family, wii urge you to veto Assembly Bill
101 an Assembly Bi1116'l.
Respect lyr
V. nr}
Mayor
Christian
community
concerns
August 6, 1991
Council Member Randy Snider
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241
Dear Mr. Snider:
AB 101, the hanosexual bill, is steamrolling through the stete legislature and is
gaining man-entum very fast.
Enclosed is sore information on the bill to bring you up-to-date as to the status of
this bill, and the implications to the churches if this bill bee ones law.
AB 101 passed the State Assembly on June 28, and is now on the Senate Side. It
passed the Senate Judiciary Carmittee several weeks ago and next will be heard in
The Senate Appropriations Cam i t t ee probably on August 19. If it passes there it
will go for a vote on the Senate Floor and then to the Governor's desk for
signature.
Regardless of how a person feels tctNards the homosexual caimunity, this is a bad
law. There is absolutely no compelling reason why we need AB 101, except to advance
the real agenda of the hanosexual ccnunity, which is to force straight America to
accept their deviant life style.
Our churches, and the Christian carmunity at large are very concerned, and are
watching very closely the activity surrounding this bill.
As the director of Christian Crrmnity Concerns I am asking that you as our city
council stand with us in opposing this bill.
Last year, on October 17, the City Council took a position to support the Alcohol
Industry by opposing proposition 134, and supporting proposition 126, the alcohol
tax initiatives, because they felt it would be harmful to the Lodi Wine Industry,
AB 101, if passed, would be equally harmful to the churches. I would hope that you
would recognize the serious implications this bill will pose, and join with us in
opposing it.
Thank -you very inch for your Consideration.
eSinerely, /
Ken C'Ne n
Director
P.0. Box 367 • Lodi, California 0 95241
�VVV�VVC TVV�V�V�VV�(
CHAIRMAN
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Traditional Values Coalition
March 27, 1991
Assemblyman Terry Friedman
Chairman, Assembly Labor and Employment Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Opposition to AB 101
Dear Assemblyman Friedman:
The Traditional Values Coalition opposes AB 101 because it,
along with its companion bill AB 167 (same sex marriages),
seeks to fulfill the real homosexual agenda -- use the power
of the state to gain full acceptance of the homosexual
lifestyle and garner special recognition and privileges.
Numerous historic statements, such as the Bill of Rights and
the 14th Amendment of our Constitution, grant civil liberties
and, equal rights to ALL Americans. For a few special groups,
Civil Rights laws have been devised to redress legitimate and
substantial discrimination related injuries not addressed by
existing law. Though such laws are powerful and coercive,
they currently have the broad support of the public,
legislatures, and courts because the groups having access to
them have, after years of evidence gathering and public
debate, been carefully chosen.
To be among those receiving protection, a group must be
identified as a "discrete and insular minority" (Chief
Justice Stone, U.S. Supreme Court, 1938) . AB 101 would
raise homosexuality to the same legal and protected status as
true insular and discreet minorities. It would take away
resources from serious legitimate civil rights cases which
would thereby do a significant dis-service to those seeking
remedy from true racial and religious discrimination.
To be considered for special protection, a class of
individuals must meet ALL of the following criteria: exhibit
obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that
define them as a discrete group; show that they are a
minority or politically powerless; have as a class of
individuals, endured substantial injury. Alternatively, the
individual or group could demonstrate that the statutory
classification at issue burdens a fundamental right.
100S.ANAHEIM BLVD. • SUITE350 • ANAHEIM.CA92805 • (714)520-0300
112711th STREET • SUITE521 • SACRAMENTO,CA95814 • (916)444-5375
4010 VBZIVI W AVE. N.W. 0 SLUF- 210 • WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 • (202) 244-8702
The following includes some of the rationale federal courts
have cited when refusing to grant hoinosexuals special
recognition and privileges:
I) Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it =s
behavioral. Hence, it is fundamentally different from traits
ouch as race, gender, or alienage, which define existing
minority groups.
2) The homosexual community does have political power. Many
elected public officials are openly homosexual, their
political action committees raise millions of dollars and
their political lobbyies influence congress and state
legislatures,
3) Zine homosexual community has not endured substantial
injury. There is no evidence that homosexuals encounter the
kind of systematic, arbitrary, and irrational discrimination
many ethnic groups endured for years. The atrocities which
led up to the 1964 Civil Rights Act simply do not exist today
against homosexuals. There are no seperate restaurants,
drinking fountains or restrooms Cor homosexuals.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v Hardwick, 1986 that
homosexual behavior is not a fundamental right protected by
the Constitution. In that decision the Court stated that to
protect homosexual sodomy would require the eventual
protection of other deviant sexual behaviors such as incest.
The Court said, "We are unwilling to travel down that road."
People's intuition, that giving special recognition and
privileges to homosexuals is the first step in a much larger
agenda, is in fact backed up by the highest court in the
land,
Homosexuality is a matter of choice. -Research by Masters and
Johnson, Dr, John Money of Johns Sopkins School of Medicine,
Dr. Charles Socarides of the Albert Einstein College of
Medicine and Dr. George Rekers of University of South
Carolina shows that homosexuality is based on environmental
factors. This is a fact which even the homosexual LIFE Lobby
cannot refute; nor can it conclusively demonstrate that
homosexuality is genetic. Realizing this and the negative
political ramifications associated with it, the LIFE Lobby
dismisses the issue of "choice of behavior" as irrelevant,
Much of our current legislation, school curriculum and
government programs regarding homosexuality depends upon
scientifically inaccurate and fraudulent data. Many studies
prove this point. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, by Drs. Reisman and
Eichel, show that the Kinsey Study of 1948, upon which some
conclusions about homosexuality are based, is fraudulent.
The oft -quoted figure of a 10% homosexual population is one
of the inaccurate conclusions. The University of Chicago's
National Opinion Research Corporation ;NORC) has shown that
the homosexual population is actually less than 1% of the
overall population. Moreover, because homosexuality is
caused by environmental factors such as rape, molestation,
dysfunctional families, etc., the number of homosexuals in
society is not a consistent percentage of the population.
- Furthermore, initial analysis of data from several studies
and state run departments shows that complaints of
discrimination based on sexual orientation were small in
number; even fewer were proved.
In summary, there is no compelling need for AB 101. Nor are
there compelling arguments that justify legislating minority
status to homosexual behavior or sanctioning the legitimacy
of the true homosexual agenda.
Sincerely,
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman
LPSIsr
�1�7�Cy�•.a� �y�1�,y'��1� � �y,���' � 7�C1��,ryR �1� � �1 1 y � �1��,y7�y�,y-7[1� �1� �l� �
i ' lt'. 7� 7c 7� -0* 7� W 7C 'V W
Traditional Values Coalition
CHAMMAN
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
AB 101 FACT SBEET
-AB 101:
Amends the Fair Employment and Housing Act:
adds "sexual orientation" to the list of specially
protected minority classifications that cannot be
considered for housing and employment purposes.
Raises homosexuality to full status as a protected civil
right:
- Removes heterosexuality from center stage as the norm
and consensus for society.
- Provides homosexuals special minority rights based
solely upon their choice of sexual behavior.
Forces religious institutions and charitable organizations
to employ homosexuals and bisexuals:
- Applies to all non-sectarian staff. (Does not apply to
clergy.)
- Includes all paid and volunteer positions.
Does not let a person who rents out a home or room(s)
refuse housing to an applicant because he/she is a
homosexual.
* Diverts scarce resources from legitimate minorities and
serious civil rights cases.
Arguments in Opposition To AB 7111:
* There is no compelling need for the bill:
- Homosexuals already enjoy the same legal rights as other
Americans do. [Enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution.)
- State documented data confirm this lack of need:
a. State Personnel Board (SPB) data taken between 1986
and 1989 show that out of 4,200 total complaints,
legitimate discrimination complaints based on sexual
orientation amounted to only .29% of all SPB
complaints.
10G S. ANAHEIM BW0. • SUITE 350 • ANAHEIM. CA 92805 • (714) 52GOM
122711th STREET • SUITE 521 • SACRAMENTO. CA95814 a (916) 444-5375
1010 VERMONT AVE N.W. • SUITE 210 • WASH . D.C.20005 , (202) 244-8702
b. Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) data
taken between 1987 and 1990 show that out of 30, 900
total complaints, legitimate discrimination based
upon sexual orientation amounted to .032% of all DFEH
complaints.
- * Homosexuals do not qualify as legal minorities: -
- The Supreme Court ruled that to be protected as a
"discrete and insular" minority, a group must exhibit
immutable characteristics, be politically powerless, and
have endured substantial injury.
- Homosexuall'.ty is not an immutable characteristic, it is
a behavioral choice.
- The homosexual community has considerable political
power.
- The homosexual community has not endured substantial
injury --there are no separate restaurants, restrooms or
drinking fountains for homosexuals.
* Homosexual behavior is not a fundamental right:
The Supreme Court ruled in -Rowers v Hardwicke, 1986,
that homosexual behavior is not a fundamental right
protected by the Constitution.
It is unfair and insulting to those minorities whose
status is valid, permanent and irreversible.
Homosexuality is a matter of choice:
- Science generally agrees that homosexuality is based
upon familial and environmental factors rather than
genetics.
- No homosexual gene has ever been identified.
- It is a decision not a destiny.
- There are recovered homosexuals; are there likewise
recovered blacks, hispanics, etc..
At most, only 3% of the population is homosexual.
- National Opinion Research Corporation, a University of
Chicago group which develops statistics for the U.S.
government, shows that less than 10 of the population is
homosexual.
- Center for Disease Control studies estimate that maybe
3 % of the population is homosexual.
* It is a direct assault on the traditional family and the
heterosexual ethic.
* It takes away the legal and mural rights of others:
- Forces people to comply with the state's determination
that homosexuality is a legitimate and protected
behavior,
- Restricts a person's religious rights and moral
conscience.
Homosexuality is a risk to the public health:
Homosexuals claim their'lifestyle is a healthy and
viable alternative to heterosexuality, but can this be
true when we consider that homosexual men account for:
a. 80% of all California AIDS cases,
b. 50% of all U.S. cases of syphilis, gonorhea of the
throat and intestinal infections,
C. a rate of hepatitis B infecion 20-50 times greater
than heterosexuals.
Homosexuality often leads to other deviant sexual
behaviors such as pedophilia or beastiality.
* In the future, "sexual orientation" can be expanded to
include pedophilia, beastiality, sado-masochism and cross -
generational sex (incest).
Prior experience shows that supporters; of this bill
say one thing to get passage then do another, revealing
their true agenda.
'
CI.AYatON. MANN. AREND 6i YAW/' 7R
•
A P"O'essWwN LAW COwrO+�wlw)w
' Nor w. www
CLAT6ON LAW •UILOINO
W<CR a. CuArapr.
a^Llwp C.&wCMp
pCR.1LL a.r csgn
601 SOUTH MAIN itR[CT -'
Isar -safe
c;w.. 4. eV&fts
..r A. wOsewtwelo
CORONA. CALIFORNIA 01720
C. erwweeew wowgwoc t
sit" aw: #C%
POST Orric[ 0OX 1447
4606.#ars
�. MNMLCN
400.6" 9ws .
•. '. s.vwpc
CORONA. CALIFORNIA 0171a•1447
wRC& COpi 714
•t s+.wCTt
FAX 17141 737-4364
727.1110
March 26, 1991
Reverend Louis P. Sheldon
_... Traditional
Values Coalition -- __-
Suite 350
100 So. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA
92805
Re: AB101
Dear Reverend Sheldon:
As you know from past contacts, I have been active in the
legal representation of various Christian ministries in the area
of employment rights. I am writing tb you to briefly register my
concerns about AB101 which would add sexual orientation to the
protected categories under the Fair Employment and Housing -Act.
In my opinion, this bill would pose grave legal concerns to
Christian ministries such as schools which oppose on Biblical
grounds heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual lifestyle practices
which are unchaste. My reasoning is as follows:
1. There are only nine religious nonprofit tax exempt
organizations in the state who have been determined to be exempt
from the jurisdiction of the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing (I+DFEH") pursuant to the religious employer exemption of
Government Code section 12926(c). only two of these exempted
organizations are educational institutions.
2. To be determined exempt, a religious nonprofit t a x
exempt organization has to be charged .with a Violation of the
Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") and must raise its claim
that it is not an employer subject to -the Act. As you can see
from the attached enforcement memorandum of the DFEH, that
exemption does not just occur on the presentation of
documentation of religious organizational status and tax -
exemption. DFEH makes further and, in my opinion,
unconstitutionally intrusive inquiry into the beliefs and
practices of the organization and its board and employees.
3. Many religious organizations more concerned with
mission than with organizational details may not have paid
attention to t h e organizational prerequisites for the exemption,
and may be caught unawares. For instance, I recently encountered
1: t
Reverend Louis S. .don
March 26, 1991
Page 2
a catholic college which had mistakenly organized itself as a
public benefit nonprofit corporation rather than a religious
nonprofit corporation, thus losing the benefits of the religious
employer exemption.
4. The mechanism for obtaining. exemption is in the nature
of a legal defense rather than an affirmative process to
_ �stt4blish the reli i us ngn rofit stat s of the o g nization.. I
elieve that the l21gislatavt history o}� Governmen ode section
12926(c) shows that if an entity was organized as a religious
nonprofit corporation or association and had obtained tax-exempt
status, it was to be exempt from the Act. The DFEH, however,
requires further proof of religious orientation of the
corporation unwilling to apply the standards of the law. Many
claims of religious exemption when made as a defense are made in
the harsh light of publicity such as the recent claims of the
homosexual professor against Christ Ccilege in Irvine or the
priest -professor at Loyola University who married without
renouncing his vows. The heavy media •attention creates extra
burdens which leads to political pressure not to give the
exemption to the claiming organization.
There are provisions under Title -IX of the Federal Civil
Rights Act that; allow religious colleges or universities to apply
to the Secretary of Education in advance for determination that
these -organizations are exempt from provisions of that law due to
religious objections to abortion and birth control coverage in
student health plans. Religious organizations should be given a
Similar mechanism under the FEHA to obtain an affirmative
determination of religious exemption even before any charges are
made.
5. The addition of the sexual orientations of
heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality to the categories
protected by law from discrimination while requiring religious
organizations to prove their religious orientation to obtain
exemption from the same law is, in effect, stating the religious
practice is the .aberrationand that homosexuality or bisexuality
are the normal standard of the law. It will open up churches and
ministries to legal claims of bigotry for simply holding to one
of the most traditional and basic of spiritual values -- the
integrity of the heterosexual relationship within the sanctity of
marriage. This is basic to Christian belief because it is the
very metaphor expressing the ideal between Christ and His Church,
This may be an obvious point, but it cannot be overemphasized.
If this amendment is passed, member churches and ministries Can
expect persecution for basic belief,:;.
Reverend Louis Sheldon
March 26, 199,1
Page 3
I have also given some thought to my earlier comments to You
about the California Supreme Court decision in ROOand
m c C891 i I iffel m Wsrt
passed. Whale these decisions pose problems to churches, they
really do not provide direct reasons for opposing this _
legislation, in ny opinion. - -
Z hope the information is helpful to you and may assist you
in informing churches and ministries that A8101 poses a real
threat to their institutions.
VorY -�ru�Y y9urs,
Kent A. Hansen
KAH:1c
CC: Dr. Paul Kienel
6.1. Sheldon
Vim. f
�Olw wiuwrt i 1
Yrr+�t
STATE OF HAWAII
OGPARTMrNT OF TNII ArrORNEEY OENERAL.
.si oueth shirt
„QMOIYW. "*All Nre7
tear V/-4148
•&r 14"1 64#.N09
March 19, 1991
The Honorable Gena Ward
Representative, Twenty -Second District
The Sba bnth UgWature
State of HxWaii
State Capitol, Room 415
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Representative Ward:
Re: S.B. No. 1811, S.D. 1
1
truua "nes. in
"fe"rr "Do*"
COM -8 A. A. *ATAKAOR
.wr «.w. 49110". Mww
This letter is in response to your written request wherein you asked for our
interpretation of section 378-3 exemption (5) as it relates to S.B. Ni 1811.
. It i s our opinion that; under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
(the separation of church and state), members of the clergy (ministers, associate ministers,
-pastors, etc.) are exempt from the provisions In S. B. 1811.
However, non-sectarian employees of the church, church -sponsored activities or
programs are not exempt. This would include secretaries, janitors, gardeners, teachers, etc.
Tice church may, however, give preference to hiring certain individuals based upon n6lJdcn
or denomination, but can not otherwise discriminate based upon race, national origin,
gender, and, under S.H. Nb. 1811, sexual orientation
PIease an me at x6-11282 if you have any further questions on this matter.
Very t ly o
Warren Price, III
,�.ttorncy General
VAP/SRH
OW101111