Councilman Larry Grohn: Vote Against The Domestic Partner Ordinance

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Larry Grohn: Vote Against the Non-Discrimination and Domestic Partner Ordinance

Thursday, August 7, 2014


Yesterday City Councilman Anderson submitted an article entitled “The Truth about the Non-Discrimination and Domestic Partner Ordinance.”


Councilman Anderson is articulate, intelligent, ambitious and driven. He sincerely and firmly believes in his convictions and will go to whatever lengths necessary to promote his agenda. However, and of course, his beliefs are deeply rooted in his personal lifestyle choice and political ideology. Contrary to his opinion, I believe his convictions, morals and values are not shared by the majority of citizens of Chattanooga, especially the social conservative Christians in all parts of the city and the churches which follow the biblical concept of social justice. Please notice I said “the biblical concept of social justice”, not the worldly concept of social justice preached in many liberal churches in our city. There is a sharp and distinct difference between the two. What is worse are the church leaders who refused to make a leadership stand on this issue. Instead they might have allowed a church member to speak on this issue, but they themselves shirk from making a biblical stand from the pulpit, possibly for fear of offending part of their congregation. Please feel free to contact me for an in-depth opinion of how I feel about their leadership.

Apparently truth is what and how Councilman Anderson decides to believe and interpret it for the rest of us. For example, the councilman expects the voters to believe his LGBT legislation was never on his personal, and unspoken, agenda when he was running for office? But I’ll let the voters make up their own minds on that one.

What this referendum is TRUTHFULLY about is the fact that five liberal council members, with the full support of the mayor and pandering to the most ideologically progressive wing of their constituency, tried to cram this law down the throats of the voters. This controversial ordinance should have been placed before the voters for them to decide. But NO, five council members believed they knew best what the city and its citizens should do on this issue. Councilman Anderson even concedes it was and is a “hot-button issue.” I believe they never expected the voters could rise up and reject their vote to force it on the ballot.

The councilman may be correct with his claim that this ordinance “doesn't redefine marriage.” However, what it does do is make marriage ill-relevant and unnecessary. Under this law taxpayers would be forced to support a domestic partnership couple’s lifestyle choice, and even their dependents, against their personal morals and values. This is the modern, cultural viewpoint, which I believe is at the heart of the councilman’s personal agenda.

The councilman makes a big deal about all the companies granting these types of benefits. I could care less about multi-national private and corporate free-market companies making a decision on the benefits they are willing to offer their employees. On the other hand, Chattanooga is a citizen-owned government corporation which taxes its residents and then allows them to elect their chief operating officer (the mayor) and the board (the council). Any citizen who does not agree with the decisions these elected officials make has three choices:

1) they can move out of the city;

2) they can elect different candidates at the next election; or,

3) they can petition to redress issues upon which they disagree with current officeholders.

The councilman rightly claims that passage of the ordinance will not bankrupt the city. I believe that statement alone indicates his complete ideological disconnect with the majority of voters in Chattanooga. It has never been about the amount it would cost! It is about the religious and moral implications it presents.

The councilman claims “If it fails, it will continue to be legal for the city to terminate someone merely because they are gay.” His own inclusion of Capt. Cooper’s successful career story would seem to dispel that statement.

The councilman bemoans the fact that Chattanooga does not have an anti-discrimination law and urges the voters to for “FOR” the ordinance in order to protect the employees. The real truth is Chattanooga could have easily had an anti-discrimination ordinance passed on Nov. 19, 2013 - which would not have been challenged by petition. Our city does not currently have it because the councilman refused to do so. Why? Only he can answer that question. Don’t believe me? Let’s refer to the minutes from the Nov. 12, 2103 general council meeting during the first reading of the ordinance. Councilman Anderson refused to separate the two distinct parts of his ordinance.

On Nov. 12, 2013 at the 6pm general council meeting the minutes indicate:

Councilman Grohn called a point of order, asking for a “division of the question.” He objected [to the ordinance] because he thought the two components of the ordinance – domestic partnership and non- discrimination - could stand alone.

After an attempt to shut down this point of order, the minutes continue.

Atty Phil Noblett “read Robert’s Rules of Order regarding debate procedures. A discussion ensured. After much discussion, Councilman Freeman moved to previous question to end debate, Councilman Anderson seconded.

A vote was then taken on the motion to divide the question and it was defeated on the same 5 to 4 vote upon which it was subsequently passed.

The councilman also claims, “Since there is so much misinformation about this hot-button issue, I thought it would be best to simply put out the facts so voters can make an informed decision." He then provided a link to the entire ordinance.

Gee, let’s take a truthful look at the language of the ordinance so the voters will be clear on the issue before them. I will summarize just the two main sections of the document.

Sec. 2-183. Anti-Harassment Policy

Any harassment related to a person's sex, color, race, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and ethnicity will not be tolerated.

The term "harassment" includes, but is not limited to, slurs, jokes and other verbal, graphic, or physical conduct, statements, or materials relating to an individual's race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age or disability sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and ethnicity.


"Harassment" also includes sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, unwelcome or offensive touching, sexually provocative or abusive language, and other verbal, graphic, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.


I am especially concerned about the inclusion and interpretation of “gender identity or expression” in the workplace.


So for the record, and contrary to what some suggest from time to time - I am not a racist, a hater or a bigot.


I do hold firm and strive to live up God’s direction in Philippians 2: 3-4 (NIV):

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.


Larry Grohn

Chattanooga City Council

District 4


Roy Exum: Cometh ‘The Black Dog’

I am one of 350 million people in the world who suffers from clinical depression. The doctors trace it back to my first decade of the 21 st century when constant surgeries and infections knocked me loopy but the more I have found, I believe I am more like Sir Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln and pro football star Terry Bradshaw – I think I have had it all my life. Today it ... (click for more)

Send Your Opinions To

We welcome your opinions at Email to . We require your real first and last name and contact information. There is no word limit, but if your article is too long you may lose your reader. Please focus more on issues than personal attacks. (click for more)

Shots Fired From Vehicle; Police Locate Car And Arrest 5 Youths With Guns

Chattanooga Police said shots were fired from a vehicle on Friday afternoon, then officers located the vehicle and arrested five youths with guns.   That comes after a spate of shooting violence in which two women were killed and several other people injured by bullets.   Just after 4 p.m. Friday,  officers with the Chattanooga Police Department responded ... (click for more)

Man Struck And Killed On Highway 27 Friday Night

A man was struck and killed on Highway 27 on Friday night. The Chattanooga Police Department responded to reports of a pedestrian struck on Highway 27 Northbound, near the Main Street exit around 8:30 p.m. A male pedestrian was struck by a single vehicle. He  succumbed to his injuries on scene.  It is unknown why he was attempting to cross the highway. The name ... (click for more)

Halftime: UTC 31 Fordham 0

Using a smothering defense and a precision-like offense, UTC scored on all four of its first half possessions, plus an interception for a score, to lead 31-0 at halftime. The Mocs defense has kept the Rams off the scoreboard with drive stopping plays  - an interception for a touchdown and one stop on fourth down at the Mocs 27..  In the second most productive ... (click for more)

Alcoa Ends Notre Dame's Season With 42-2 Setback

ALCOA -- It's hard to get past the cold hard facts. Notre Dame's Fighting Irish football team had another outstanding season, but it ended the same way as last year with a semifinal loss to the Alcoa Tornadoes. It wasn't as close as last year's 28-19 defeat as Alcoa gave up a safety in its first possession before scoring 42 straight points, winning for the 10th straight week ... (click for more)