The following is a slightly modified version of an email I sent to South Euclid's City Council:
Last night, while perusing Facebook, I was confronted by one of the most offensive, distorted political screeds I’ve ever seen.
Last night, while perusing Facebook, I was confronted by one of the most offensive, distorted political screeds I’ve ever seen.
As someone with whom I’ve spoken
before, I know you’re too intelligent to fall for this nonsense.
The article (which, of course, shows
no specific author) claims that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people
and their advocates are bullying people of faith into accepting LGBT
people. Excuse me? Is there an epidemic of LGBT people beating
up on Catholics, on Protestants, Jews, Muslims, or members of any faith? Was Matthew Shepherd killed because of his
faith? The article goes on to claim that
members of the LGBT community and those who advocate for equality are in favor
of a “demonic gender ideology” that stems from a “deadly impulse” and “ideological
colonialism.”
Then there’s the image at the top
of their page. It was obviously
included to inflame rather than to illuminate.
Does this look like anyone you know in South Euclid? It shouldn’t, because the picture itself was taken
in New York City. For someone to use a photo
from a New York event (where people tend to go over the top) as an example of life
here in South Euclid is profoundly dishonest.
If you want to see a typical South Euclid couple, I invite you to look
at the most recent issue of South Euclid magazine (image attached). Standing next to Councilman Marty Gelfand are
my husband Daniel and myself. My husband is originally from Puerto Rico and
works as a medical technologist at a South Euclid facility. I grew up in South Euclid and Lyndhurst,
graduated from Brush High School in 1985, and have worked at Progressive
Insurance for the past 13 years. Both Daniel
and I are productive, taxpaying residents of South Euclid. I am pointing out these facts, which you
probably already know, for the following reason:
At the October 9th
Council meeting, a contingent of people spoke against passage of Ordinance
12-17. The Sun Messenger reporter gave a
cursory rundown of the event. I attended
both the Council and Committee of the Whole meetings. I carefully noted where these people stated
they were from and with which group they were associated. Nearly every person who spoke against the
Ordinance was either tied to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church or to the Lyceum
school, which is located on the church’s property. Many of the speakers were not South Euclid
residents/taxpayers – from as far away as North Royalton, Newberry Township,
and Concord. In other words, this was a
carefully coordinated flash-mob intended to sway council into believing that
they represent the majority. I doubt a
true South Euclid majority, or even a majority of religious people would agree
with them. Indeed, I spoke with several
Catholic members of my family, and they were appalled to learn of this group’s
action.
I spoke briefly at the council
meeting, abandoning my prepared remarks and speaking from the heart. As the time for commenting at council
meetings is limited, I’d like to address a few of the other comments point by
point (my responses are underlined):
Someone at the Committee of the
Whole meeting brought up the case concerning the cake baking facility currently
before the Supreme Court – in which the bakery is being sued for refusing to
bake a wedding cake for a gay couple’s wedding. If the Court rules in favor of the couple,
then the law will already be on the books in South Euclid and can be
enforced. If the court rules in favor of
the bakery, then that portion of the law will simply not apply. However, if the Ordinance is not passed and
the Court rules in favor of the couple, then Council will have to go back to
the drawing board and address that in a future Ordinance.
Luke Macik stated that religious
organizations need to be free to hire/reject applicants based on religious
principles. Ordinance 12-17 has an exemption for
religious organizations.
Mark Langley stated that the
Ordinance is unnecessary because there is no evidence of anti-LGBT
discrimination in South Euclid. Do we
need to wait until someone is killed by a drunk driver to outlaw driving while
intoxicated?
Jeanette Flood of Lakewood stated
the Ordinance was telling businesses who they could hire. The Ordinance does not tell people who
they can hire. It merely states that
employers cannot discriminate based on certain criteria, as does the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 – which has been upheld numerous times by the United States
Supreme Court.
Molly Monaco stated she was fearful
that perverts would use the Ordinance as cover to enter public
bathrooms/changing rooms and prey on children.
No one in South Euclid’s LGBT community wants children to be placed
in danger. But let’s be realistic. Child endangerment is against the law and
will remain so if the Ordinance is passed.
Other communities have passed similar Ordinances with no increase in the
type of incidents Ms. Monaco imagines.
It is well known that those who prey on children are most often members
or friends of the child’s family. Does Ms.
Monaco, or any of the others who raised this issue, really believe that
Transgender people have gone to the trouble and expense of hormones, multiple surgeries,
dealing with the bureaucracy to have their identity forms updated, not to
mention the emotional trauma of telling their families – all for the thrill of
using another restroom? All to prey on
children? That’s a hurtful insult to my
Transgender friends.
Michael Rodriguez of Newberry
Township stated the law is not necessary as Ohio is an Employee at Will state
in which someone can be hired or fired at any time. While Ohio is an Employee at Will state,
if a fired or non-hired Employee can prove in a court of law that they were
discriminated against due to their race, religion, or several other criteria,
they are entitled to recompense. South
Euclid should add Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to that criteria.
Christy Raynor of Lyndhurst
stated that if the Ordinance is passed people would move out of South Euclid,
as people have already moved to West Geauga.
Here is where I put my cards on the table. Ms. Raynor is correct that certain people
have left South Euclid for West Geauga – as well as Lake County. We all know why these people moved: Because
over the past three decades South Euclid has become more diverse and there are
those who are uncomfortable with ethnic, religious, and other forms of
diversity. Frankly, if these are the
types of people who panic when an African-American or other minority family
moves next door, then South Euclid is better off without those who’ve abandoned
our community. Good riddance.
Martin Joyce of North Royalton
stated that Catholic Christians have certain religious tenets they must follow
and that passage of the Ordinance will prevent them from honoring those
tenets. Throughout history, religion
has been used to justify the most egregious behavior, from slavery, to sexual
exploitation, to genocide. Even today,
there are “honor killings” in which a family member can be killed for trying to
make their own religious choice, for refusing to be sold into marriage, or for
being gay. In several nations, being gay
is a “death penalty” offense – including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan,
Yemen, and Nigeria. Freedom of religion
does not give one the right to break the just laws of this country or this
community – and there are already adequate exemptions in the Ordinance.
The article to which I have
linked, as well as other articles that can be found online, including one from
a group called “C-Fam” that compared LGBT people to NAZI’s, are examples of how
low some people will stoop to prevent another group of people from obtaining
their just rights.
I hope you will see
through the smokescreen this group is trying to create, and support Ordinance
12-17.
Respectfully Yours,
Hank Drake
This is not a South Euclid gay couple
This is.
