Lancaster Council Votes Frightening
The actions of the Lancaster City Council in voting to oppose both AB101 and AB167 are disturbing to say the least. The reasons, especially the quotes of Messrs. Root and Theophanis and Rev. Hearns, are outrageous and frightening.
This country, of which the city of Lancaster is still a part, was founded largely in response to religious intolerance and tyrannical oppression. The USA was intended to be a country of refuge for the oppressed, a land of tolerance, with ethnic and religious diversity.
The statements “raised a Christian . . . die a Christian†(Theophanis), “I’m Christian . . . support the traditional family lifestyle†(Root), and “I am a preacher of the Gospel . . . never going to change . . . God is my King†(Hearns), imply that our councilmen make decisions for this city based upon these beliefs, as if this was a “Christian†city, without respect for any other citizens who may not share their religious beliefs.
This is unfair, and possibly downright illegal.
Rev. Hearns’ apparent instigation of this vote is most hypocritical. Not more than three months ago he proposed and campaigned for a city “Hate Crimes Bill†that would have endorsed the right of all peoples to coexist peacefully. He now seems to have decided that it is OK to hate and discriminate against others because they are different.
To address the specific issue of homosexuality, organizations such as the Family Action Network and Concerned Women of the Antelope Valley, among others, seem to be under the misconception that gays wish to convert the world to their way of life.
This is absurd. When was the last time anyone in the city of Lancaster, or anywhere for that matter, had to answer a knock on their door from someone spreading the “gospel†of homosexuality?
Do these groups fear that the gays will molest our children? In the Antelope Valley we have one of the highest rates of child abuse and molestation in the country. When was the last time the local newspaper had a headline regarding such crimes being committed by gays? The incidence of these same crimes attributed to priests and men of the cloth is astounding.
Should we perhaps allow for discrimination against these groups? Of course not.
JACK R. COLEMAN-LEVY, Lancaster
