Nashville's Online Source for Daily News
Search Site
Metro GLBT legislation to be discussed Wednesday
With the advent of a new Metro Council and Mayor’s Office, several local gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) rights and business organizations will hold a town hall meeting next Wednesday to discuss the possible reintroduction of a sexual-orientation nondiscrimination bill and other gay rights legislation in the Metro Council.
In 2003, the Metro Council considered an ordinance that would have prevented discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation within city government. The ordinance failed.
In an interview Monday, Marisa Richmond, president of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, called Wednesday’s meeting “a jumping-off point for discussion” for the local GLBT community following the Metro elections this summer and fall.
“What is our priority — is it still nondiscrimination, and, if so, how are we going to move forward? How are we going to achieve that?” Richmond asked.
“We feel like we have a lot of support now in the administration — both Karl Dean and Diane Neighbors reached out to the community and aggressively asked for our support,” Richmond said, adding that several of the Metro Council candidates endorsed by the Tennessee Equality Project and the Out and About newspaper won elections.
“Of course, the community I think is a lot better organized today than we were four years ago, and we’re certainly a lot more united than we were four years ago, although what we’re going to be united on remains to be seen. So there’s a big sense of optimism out there.”
Richmond said that a domestic partner benefits program for Metro and a “safe schools” program to address bullying might also be considered.
Chris Sanders, president of the statewide Tennessee Equality Project, called the meeting the beginning of a longer discussion.
“I think what we want to do is get the community’s feedback on any of those possibilities, but we recognize that none of those issues were the top issues that were talked about by the candidates,” he said.
“So we know that it’s going to take time — this is not something that we expect will be introduced in one month or something like that. This is not a first shot in the new Council.”
“We’re beginning the discussions now. That’s how people should understand what’s going on.”
The meeting is scheduled for 6:30-8:30 p.m. Oct. 10. The location is still undecided.
Sponsors include the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Campaign, the Nashville GLBT Chamber of Commerce, the Tennessee Equality Project and the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Technorati
Mailing list sign-up
1415 Pitty Pat Rd, Clarksville
Price: $175,000
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 3/3
3453 Eastwood Dr, Clarksville
Price: $0
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 0/0
View More Homes
This article has my vote as the biggest crank-attractor of the day, possibly the week.Bigger than the Preds, even.c'mon Id, don't you want to be first?
It's pretty damn stupid to telegraph your intentions to your enemies. Now the GLBT community has just tipped their hand on their agenda and allowed every right-wing, anti-American homophobe in the city to prepare for a campaign against their cause before they even get started.Sometimes I wonder if these people actually WANT to see this legislation pass or if they're just trying to pick fights and rile up their own supporters.Stupid strategy, folks. You're in for a long year now.
Morph, how long would such a meeting be secret? THE CITY PAPER keeps a close eye on the mayor's office. It would know about this meeting. You wouldn't want these activists to say "no comment
Yeah, HokeyPokey, and YOU were the first to respond.
morpheus120, how long have you been an “Anti-American heterophobe”? BTW, do you believe that those that choose to engage in homosexual behavior have some sort of radio frequency that only they can emit and receive? I have heard of Gay-dar but did not know that it could enable those that choose to engage in homosexual behavior also to send messages about pending legislation. Chortle, chortle, chortle…chortle.
Folks, I would love to sit here and spar with you over this bovine manure because you know how much I detest those that choose to engage in homosexual behavior and their enablers. Especially, when they/you would have us believe they are being discriminated against. However, I have to visit a client in the Chattanooga area today, but I will check back later, unless, I am having more fun elsewhere.
Metro Government employees currently have the option of including legal spouses in their health insurance coverage. Mayor Dean may support a change to include health care coverage for the same sex partners of G/L Metro employees. If a measure is drafted to provide that new benefit, then it will go before the Metro Council for appropriation of the additional costs. It is the increased costs for that health care that will actually be the most significant obstacle.Metro is self-insured, and the costs are already quite high. If you add a higher risk population to those covered then costs could impact Metro’s ability to offer good plans to current employees and retirees. Whether you support the other GLBT causes or not, the health insurance matter places the new Metro Council in the position of finding funds for current employees, and a new at risk population.
No it is not stupid to "tip your hand." That is what damaged the cause the most last time ... was trying to slip it past the public through political insiders and (term-limited) Council members. We need a full public discussion about this. The GLBT community (which I am a part) needs to be willing to stand up in public and say why this is important. I believe it is important for Nashville to move forward on GLBT issues ... it certainly has not hurt the other cities that have passed anti-discrimination legislation. Being balanced, fair, and open to diversity has not hurt Vanderbilt, Deloitte & Touche, and all the other companies in Nashville that have anti-discrimination policies.
MJB, this story was not put out to the paper's by the Mayor's office. They have nothing to do with the town hall meeting - it is all being set up by the sponsor organizations, who clearly went out of their way to let the CP know all about it and even give quotes. Sounds to me like you are trying to make the GLBT community activists mentioned here sound "courageous" for being loud and proud about their new agenda. And that may be - but it's also going to make their work a lot harder.
I agree that we should move forward on this topic right away. We should begin writing the Mayor's Office and the Council to stop this before it starts. Making the people of Nashville pay for same-sex partner benefits is a terrible idea. Who says you would have to actually even be a "partner" to qualify? Just get your unemployed friends to sign up on your insurance. Sounds like a great plan, doesn't it?As a quick disclaimer, I work for a private organization that has, unfortunately, chosen to offer same-sex partner benefits. But, our tax dollars do not subsidize this. That makes a big difference, Mr. Fulton. Vanderbilt and Deloitte can do whatever they want - their customers pay for the insurance. Metro would have to take more of my tax dollars to pay for it.
Now see - RonHickman has already made up his mind about this issue before the GLBT organizers have even met, set goals, and figured out how to convince people that their mission is a just one. Now, multiply that by the thousands of people who read this story today. Do you see what I'm saying now about discretion being the better part of valor here, MJB?
Given that this state passed an amendment that bans same-sex marriage, how can this be an issue? Is this group trying to circumnavigate the “law” to still get what they want? Why do we bother with laws and rules to live by?
ActiveCitizenWhat do you mean by an "at-risk population?' Gay people are no more or less healthy than the general population. Plus, IIRC, businesses/governments which have coverage for partners have had no more than a 1% increase in number of people covered. If you reallllly care about the cost of coverage, then eliminate ALL people from the plan who are not employees: no spouse and kids. That would really drive the cost down and save tax money.
Kosh – I believe the insurance companies might have a different view on that than you do. Life style, smoking, drinking, motorcycling, “private life” preference, all have a dollar affect on insurance cost and plans.
Morpheus, you are correct. I actually made up my mind about the issue 4 years ago when the Nashville Scene awarded me the Boner Award for being the "Greater of 2 Evils" for my stance against the bill the last time the council considered it. I have not changed my mind, although I am probably a little nicer on an individual basis when discussing the issue with members of the GLBT community. I mean, you can have an opinion without being nasty about it, right?
RonHickman, you want to have your cake and eat it too. The argument goes (and you're not alone in making it) that we can't be sure that same sex partners are really partners at all, but we sure don't want to let them get married either. You can't complain about an obstacle of your own creation.Active, do you think it's right to continue disparate treatment of Metro employees simply to save some money? I don't. I don't want to see Metro buying Indulgences for discrimination.
revo-lou, I think you're confused about the law yourself. The amendment barring same sex marriage has no language whatsoever addressing domestic partner benefits by a County government.
Thanks global for telling me what I already know. I guess the question is, does Metro have a policy in place now that allows “domestic partners” of the opposite sex to have benefits thru the city? If not, then global, that was my reference point.
rev-louYou miss my point. Gay people are on average, no more nor less healthy than anyone else.
Metro has no policy in place and that crap-shoot is just the beginning of "WHAT YOU GET" with Dean. We knew he was pandering to the Gays and what is the first thing thrown in our face? The Damn Gays!
Kosh – I got what you said, what I said was that the insurance companies don’t see it that way. And given that they control the prices, those outside of their “median range” cost more money.
how wer edward everett horton,rock hudson elton john truman capote and thousands of other successful gays discriminated against?
SO ... all of you that have raised financial concerns ... would support legislation that is revenue/expense neutral. RIGHT? There certainly are issues that anti-discrimination legislation could address that would not impact Metro's budget. SO would you support that.
Since we know that there are gays/lesbians already working in Metro, and they have not/would not be fired for it, what other issues are there?
The problem with pro-homosexual legislation is that it never stops with them trying to get benefits or protection. That is just the beginning for them. They want to muzzle the free speech of the overwhelming majority of the people in this country who think this kind of behavior is wrong and destructive. They know what they are doing is wrong and their consciences will not allow even a single person to raise a perfectly good argumente about what they are doing.
Concerning the health of homosexuals....they are many times more likely to suffer from std's, depression, suicide, aids, and complications from the above than the heterosexual population. That is a statistical fact. Just ask the Centers for Disease Control. The problem with the homosexual activists is that they are deceived themselves and they are only speaking out of their deception. They actually think they are right. I believe that the truth is what we all need. Whether a person is involved in homosexuality, smoking crack, or whatever. If one knew the consequenses of their behavior they would act differently. That's a lesson for all of us, myself included.
If they can get benefits, why not heterosexual partners?? There are thousands of heteros that have life partners. Why would you want to discriminate against them? It's clearly discrimination.Where does the legality of the matter end? If "life partners" are changed, is one name scratched out and a new one penciled in?? This whole thing is so wrong in so many ways and it's not just about "lifestyles". I don't think this has anything to do with obtaining insurance. A lot, if not most, already have insurance. It's all about pushing an agenda, not the least of which is trying to legitimize the lifestyle. Nature will not be fooled.
Andrew, since when do we judge people guilty collectively? If one can demonstrate a healthy, monogamous gay couple and contrast that with a promiscuous, STD-ridden heterosexual, your arguments fall apart. Talk about deceived. Tell us, what is inherently "wrong" about two people of the same sex in a romantic relationship? Because the Bible says it's wrong?
wgpugh, spare us the sophistry. We're all fairly intelligent adults here (I think) and disingenuously playing dumb doesn't pass the laugh test here. Heterosexuals can simply get married. Gays can't. Duh!
The week isn't over but I believe this has been the biggest crank-attractor so far...
morpheus120, how long have you been an “Anti-American heterophobe”?
DeWayne Fulton that you choose to engage in homosexual behavior is your own fault, but where is your documented evidence that “diversity has not hurt Vanderbilt, Deloitte & Touché, and all the other companies in Nashville that have anti-discrimination policies.” It is laughable and expected that you cloaked your non-persuasive argument with “diversity”. However, you did not have the gumption to declare, “Homosexuality” has not hurt Vanderbilt, Deloitte & Touché, and all the other companies in Nashville that have anti-discrimination policies.” Gee, I wonder why….
global_citizen “Tell us, what is inherently "wrong" about two people of the same sex in a romantic relationship? Because the Bible says it's wrong?”Based on your argument, why would civilization consider bestiality “wrong”? After all, it would involve two consenting adults; right? Now you know.
HokeyPokey – “The week isn't over but I believe this has been the biggest crank-attractor so far...” Hey, hey, the biggest crank - HokeyPokey has returned to its roost. Crank-on, HokeyPokey; Crank-on! Chortle, chortle, chortle… You are such a putz.
global_citizen – “Heterosexuals can simply get married. Gays cannot. Duh!” Actually, global_citizen those that choose to engage in homosexuality CAN get married. They simply need to choose a member of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals do. There is no law against a male that chooses to engage in homosexual behavior marrying a female that chooses to engage in homosexual sex. Therefore, the issue is not about homosexuality is it? I seem to remember a homosexual in the state of Washington falling in love with a horse and having sex with it. Apparently, it was the death of the human. (As well it should be) Notice there is no mention of the Bible, heaven ort hell. Nevertheless, I will be willing to bet dollars to donuts that his soul has been condemned to eternity in HELL. (As well it should be)
Kosh III- “Gay people are on average, no more or less healthy than anyone else” Where, pray tell is your irrefutable evidence? Auto Immune Deficiency virus is not attributed to, or pervasive in heterosexuals as it is with those that choose to engage in homosexuality. If AIDS were NOT a health concern with those that choose to engage in homosexuality then surely, you would agree that we discontinue funding the research its “cure”, right.
Plantsman - I hardly know where to begin. First, I am quite willing to say that homosexuality has not hurt (and in fact has helped) Vanderbilt, Deloitte, Sprint, HCA, WebMD, Borders, CMT/MTV, Comcast and the dozens of other companies that operate in Nashville that include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination statement. Excluding Vanderbilt, why do you think these profit-minded companies protect gay / lesbian / homosexual employees -- because it's good business? The word Homosexuality does not scare me and I don’t mind using it – since you don’t seem to understand my other word choice. Homosexuality is a clinical term and general not very useful in political discussions … in part because it does not describe everyone in the GBLT community.On AIDS, I sure all the heterosexual people around the world afflicted/surviving HIV/AIDS will be glad of your statement that they have nothing to fear. Also, HIV/AIDS is growing much faster in the U.S. African-American community that the gay community. Since your in the mood to be rude and personal … I won’t call you a racist because I don’t know anything about you other than your hate … but others might.Have a nice day.Ps. Notice that I use my real name in my comments – I am not afraid to stand behind my words and be public with my values.
plants, I know you think all the recycled quips you hear on talk radio are clever. They are not. They're dumb and you make yourself look dumb by making a serious suggestion of a stupid non-solution. You won't get very far in a reasoned debate by suggesting gay people should marry someone of the opposite sex. You wouldn't take me one bit seriously if I suggested Christians should only be allowed to worship in a mosque and that would be an adequate accommodation. Don't make equally ridiculous suggestions on this topic.And if you consider your dog a "consenting adult