Julie's testimony: 5 Misconceptions about Ordinance 64

First of all, I want you to know that it has been extremely painful for the GLBT community to sit through these hearings being verbally assaulted and denigrated by the religious opponents of Ordinance 64.

You may have heard what I am about to say, but it bears repeating, to get us back to the original proposal.

Misconception #1: Our opponents claim they hate the behavior, not the person. This is the first of many misconceptions the opponents cling to about my community. They do not know us. I am a Lesbian, and it's not what I do, but who I am. My emotional, social, romantic and sexual energies are linked to women. If I were to be celibate for the rest of my life, I would still be a lesbian.

Misconception #2: That sexual orientation is a choice. Psychologists tell us that sexual orientation is formed very early in life, by complex factors of nature and nurture, and that there is little to no choice about it. Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, but no one suggests that it is a choice.

Misconception #3: The "gay agenda." We do have an agenda -- to gain equal protection from discrimination and live healthy, happy lives.

Misconception #4: There are cures or treatments for homosexuality. Since homosexuality is not an illness or a disease, there is no need to talk about cures.

Misconception #5, the biggest misconception of all: Passing this ordinance will result in a loss of rights by those opposing it and will create special rights for the GLBT community. Neither of these premises is true. Discrimination is not a right nor a freedom, regardless of the beliefs from which it stems, so it's not something that can be taken away. The GLBT community would gain equal rights, not special rights.

I believe in freedom of speech (and being responsible for the abuse of that right),

religious freedom (but not forcing those beliefs on others),

and the separation of church and state, or city in this case.

The religious testimony has turned these hearings into a stage for judgment rather than a fight for civil rights. Let's get back to the basic issue here: the need for GLBTs to be in included in the anti-discrimination ordinance.

The testimony the first night of the hearings and thereafter from members of our community should have provided enough evidence to show the need for Ordinance 64, but if that isn't enough, have you been hearing the rhetoric and messages of our opponents?

I urge you to pass Ordinance 64 with language that protects the entire GLBT community. Thank you.