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


 


Trangenders And Military Service - And Response

I am sickened by the tweet concerning transgender people in the military. I served honorably and took an early retirement. I got out in April "96. It took me numerous years to come to the conclusion that yes I am a transgender woman. President Obama gave me hope that I would be able to medically transition with the help of the VA and my Tricare insurance. I feel like ... (click for more)

Dr. Livesay Should Step Down From Bryan College Leadership - And Response (8)

I am writing in response to the July 25th article, "Online Petition Seeks Removal of Bryan College President, Board Chair".  As a graduate of Bryan College (1984), I am saddened by the response of Dr. Stephen Livesay and the Board of Trustees regarding the online petition.  The purpose of the petition really has little to do with the school’s “clarification” of its ... (click for more)

Desmond Clay Shot And Killed On Wilcox Boulevard

Chattanooga Police said 39-year-old Desmond Clay was shot and killed while driving in a vehicle on Wilcox Boulevard on Wednesday night.   At 10:18 p.m., o fficers responded to a person shot call  at 3399 Wilcox Blvd.   The v ictim was located in a vehicle that crashed into a business. He had  suffered multiple gunshot wounds. He ... (click for more)

Tyree Corley Arrested In Shooting Death Of Kathy Hardy In Renaissance Park July 16

Tyree Tichion Corley, 21, was arrested and charged with felony murder and especially aggravated robbery as a suspect in the fatal shooting of Kathy Hardy. Corley is in custody at the Hamilton County Jail.  Chattanooga Police officials said they appreciate the assistance they received from law enforcement partners at the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, Hamilton County ... (click for more)

Barons Bounce Back Wednesday Beating Lookouts, 3-1

After dropping game one, 9-4, Tuesday, the Birmingham Barons (13-19) nipped the Chattanooga Lookouts (24-8), 3-1. Fans at Wednesday night's game were treated to a pitcher's duel between two former first-round draft picks -- Chattanooga's Kohl Stewart and Birmingham's Stephen Kopech. Kopech struck out 12 hitters over six innings and the Barons' bullpen did the rest. Kopech ... (click for more)

SEC Annouces Television Schedule For First Three Weeks Of 2017 Season

The SEC Office on Tuesday announced the start times for games on the SEC Network during the first three weeks of the 2017 season.   The SEC Network Saturday schedule opens with three games on September 2 .  The Network will air six games on the second week of the season and five games in Week 3.  The first Conference matchup of the year on the ... (click for more)