 |  |
| |
User loginWho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 0 guests online.
|
Monroe Co. Voter Guide: Local Candidates Speak on GLBT IssuesSubmitted by beacon on October 17, 2008 - 9:23pm.
Bloomington Beacon co-sponsored a candidate reception on Oct. 12, 2008, in partnership with Bloomington PFLAG, bloomingOUT radio at WFHB, Indiana Equality Region 9, Indiana Transgender Rights Advocacy Alliance and the Rainbow Rights Task Force of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Bloomington. bloomingOUT recorded candidates' presentations for possible broadcast. Here are the results of co-sponsored candidate questionnaires on GLBT issues for: Monroe County Commissioner, Districts 2 and 3; Monroe County Circuit Court Judge, Seats 6 and 9; MCCSC School Board, District 4; and RBBCSC School Board At-Large. "This year, our questionnaires targeted only contested races and only those offices with significant power to help or harm GLBT citizens and their families in particular," says John Clower, Bloomington Beacon board president. Fourteen candidates attended the event, including Dr. James R. Beima, Elizabeth Cure, Don Francis, Penny Githens, Christine Talley Haseman, Valeri Haughton, Warren Henegar, Joby Jerrells, Iris Kiesling, Geoff McKim, Jeff Schemmer, Vi Simpson, Mark Stoops and Julie Thomas. Monroe County Commissioner (District 2): Jeff Schemmer (R) Mark Stoops (D) Monroe County Commissioner (District 3): Pat Jeffries (R) Iris Kiesling (D)
Question 1: Why should Monroe County adopt or not adopt a human-rights ordinance with sexual orientation and gender identity among the protected categories? Jeff Schemmer: I would consider an ordinance if there was enough support. However I think this is something that should be looked at at a state level. Mark Stoops: I believe Monroe County should adopt a human rights ordinance to increase protection against crimes and discrimination because of sexual orientation and race. Although I think our society is gradually improving, specific legal protections are still necessary to ensure fairness. Pat Jeffries: Monroe County's personnel policy is updated in a timely manner and of course you may not consider it adequately covering human rights issues. I would certainly support any proposals that would benefit the humane and compassionate treatment of all employees. Progress in all areas of employment, besides payment and benefits is always desirable for employee morale. Iris Kiesling: About six or seven years ago, the Commissioners amended the Monroe County Personnel Policies to include non-discrimination language as follows: "...The County does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, veteran status, genetic information, or any other legally-protected classification. This policy of non-discrimination applies to all terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to recruiting, hiring, promotion, training, transfer, compensation and discharge...."
Question 2: If elected, would you support extending benefits to the domestic partners of Monroe County employees? Schemmer: Support. Stoops: Support. Jeffries: I would support benefit proposals that have adequate public input and support and the recommendation of our county attorneys. Kiesling: I have supported these kind of benefits for many years, but it's important to note, particularly in these difficult economic times, that there are additional costs to both the employer and the employee, which may include income taxes on these fringe benefits.
Question 3: Because same-sex couples have limited access to legal recognition of their relationship and their families, a domestic partner registry can be used to assist employers who wish to make domestic-partner benefits available to their employees. Would you support or oppose creation of a Domestic Partner Registry for Monroe County? Schemmer: Support. Stoops: Support. Jeffries: I am very interested in learning more about the benefits of Domestic Partner Registry. Who maintains it and is it government or privately controlled? What would the cost to the taxpayer be if it is government based? Any information tool holds the possibility of advantageous use if managed and advertised effectively. Kiesling: I could support such a registry if I could be assured that individuals' privacy is protected and that the opportunities for misuse could be avoided. Virtually, anything that comes through the county becomes public record. Also, it's possible that this would require state legislation. Monroe County Circuit Court Judge (Seat 6): Valeri Haughton (D) Joby D. Jerrells (R)
Monroe County Circuit Court Judge (Seat 9): Elizabeth A. Cure (D) Judge Christine T. Haseman (R)
Question 1: Does current Indiana decisional and statutory law permit a single person to serve as a foster parent? Haughton: Yes. Jerrells: Yes. Cure: Yes. Haseman: Yes: Regarding custody determinations, Indiana Code Sections 31-17-2-8 and 31-14-13-2 set forth the factors that a court must consider in deciding a custody issue. The court is to consider "all relevant factors," including the factors enumerated in these statues. The court is required to use this information to make a custody determination consistent with the best interests of the child or children. A parent or legal custodian's sexual orientation or gender identity is not relevant to a custody determination unless evidence of an adverse effect upon the welfare of the child is presented to the court. Pryor v. Pryor, 714 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Question 2.a: Does Indiana decisional and statutory law permit a trial court judge to consider a parent's sexual orientation or gender identity as a factor in deciding a child custody issue? 2.b. ...in determining the parameters of child visitation? 3. If yes, what case law or statutory provisions would you rely upon in considering the influence of a parent's or legal custodian's sexual orientation or gender identity? Haughton: Yes, but such considerations are permissible only to the extent that the court may determine whether those or any other factors have an adverse effect upon the child(ren)'s welfare. Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 states: "The court shall determine custody and enter a custody order in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, there is no presumption favoring either parent. The court shall consider all relevant factors..." I would rely on the findings of the court in D.H. v J.H. and in Pryor v. Pryor (1999) - The court, in D.H. v J.H., 418 N.E.2d 286, 1981 Ind. App. LEXIS 1318 (1981) stated: "Homosexuality standing alone without any evidence of any adverse effect upon the welfare of the child does not (emphasis added) render the homosexual parent unfit as a matter of law to have custody of the child." The Pryor court found "...no evidence of any adverse effect upon the child's welfare as a result of the mother's homosexuality, the record revealed inadequate support for the decision of the trial court that it was in the child's best interest to be in the father's custody, and remand for a custody hearing was required." Indiana Code 31-17-4-1 "does not require a trial court to consider specified factors, and whatever the value of a trial court considering the factors listed in I.C. 31-17-4-1 "does not require a trial court to consider specified factors, and whatever the value of a trial court considering the factors listed in I.C. 31-17-2-8, if any, in making parenting time determination, such consideration is not required; thus, a trial court did not err in failing to apply statutory factors in making its parenting time determination." Shady v. Shady, 858 N.E.2d 128, 2006 Ind. App. LEXIS 2518 (2006). Jerrells: No. Cure: The only considerations are those factors which influence the "best interest of the child." Frequent contact with both parents is paramount. Haseman: Not in and of itself. :Regarding custody determinations, Indiana Code Sections 31-17-2-8 and 31-14-13-2 set forth the factors that a court must consider in deciding a custody issue. The court is to consider "all relevant factors," including the factors enumerated in these statues. The court is required to use this information to make a custody determination consistent with the best interests of the child or children. A parent or legal custodian's sexual orientation or gender identity is not relevant to a custody determination unless evidence of an adverse effect upon the welfare of the child is presented to the court. Pryor v. Pryor, 714 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Regarding child visitation (now called "parenting time" in Indiana), Indiana Code Section 31-17-4-1 entitles parents to reasonable parenting time with their minor children unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time by the noncustodial parent might endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development. In parenting time controversies, the court must give foremost consideration to the best interest of the child. Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N.E.2d 733, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). A court cannot restrict a noncustodial parent's parenting time with his or her minor child based solely on the parent's sexual orientation or gender identity; however, a court can place reasonable restrictions on parenting time if a parent's behavior has a demonstrable adverse effect upon the child. See Marlow v. Marlow.
Question 4.a: How do you interpret prevailing Indiana decisional and statutory law relating to the adoption of a child or children by a same-sex couple? Haughton: Allowed - Consideration is the best interests of the child. It is certainly in the best interests of the child(ren) to be adopted by loving and caring parents, regardless of their sexual orientation. Jerrells: In the case of In Re Infant Girl W. 845 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the Indiana Court of Appeals interpreted the Indiana Adoption Act as permitting unmarried couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, to file a joint petition for adoption. The decision was split in the Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer 4-1, which means the decision stands as good law. This area of law (including domestic partnerships) is developing and subsequent legislative action may affect the Adoption Act. Cure: It is allowed. (See enclosed case law.) Haseman: Same-sex couples in Indiana may adopt a child or children. In the case of In re: Infant Girl W., 845 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the adoption of the infant by her same-sex foster parents. The Court determined that the couple provided a loving, nurturing home for the child and that the adoption was in the child's best interests. The Court concluded that an unmarried couple in Indiana, without distinction based on gender or sexual orientation, may file a joint petition to adopt a minor child under the Indiana Adoption Act. All prospective adoptive parents must establish that the adoption of the child is in the child's best interests. This standard is the same regardless of the marital status, gender, or sexual orientation of the prospective adoptive parents.
Question 4.b: How do you interpret prevailing Indiana decisional and statutory law relating to the fostering of a child or children by a same-sex couple? Haughton: Allowed - Consideration is the best interests of the child. It is certainly in the best interests of the child(ren) to be fostered by loving and caring people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Indiana law allows same-sex couples to adopt and be foster parents to children. The overriding responsibility and goal of the State is to act in the best interests of the child. If a child has the opportunity to be placed in a loving and caring environment, that is surely in the child's best interest regardless of the sexual orientation of the parent or parents. The same is true when the court must determine custody and visitation issues. Jerrells: My interpretation of current Indiana law is that adoption of a child by a same-sex couple and fostering of a child by a same-sex couple is permitted. Cure: It is allowed. Haseman: Same-sex couples may serve as foster parents in Indiana. Please see my discussion of In re: Infant Girl W., above. In that case, the child lived with same-sex foster parents from the time that she was two days old until her foster parents adopted her.
Question 5: In some instances, parental treatment of transgender children has become a custody or visitation issue. At what age does scientific research say that a child knows its gender identity, whether or not that identity agrees with the gender assigned to him or her at birth? Haughton: From everything that I've read, apparently between the ages of four and seven. Jerrells: The answer to this question is better left to medical and scientific experts to present evidence on a case-by-case basis. Studies support the proposition that gender identity is hard-wired at birth and that children become aware of gender incompatibilities as they mature, which occurs at different rates depending on the child. With custody and visitation issues, the primary concern is always the best interest of the child and parents should not be denied custody or visitation based on parental treatment of transgender children. Cure: Somewhere between 18-30 months of age. Haseman: As with all research involving human beings, the age at which a child knows his or her gender identity will vary from child to child. Generally, children begin to be aware of their gender identity as toddlers, somewhere between 18 and 30 months of age. In hearing a case where a child's gender identity is an issue, I would expect the parties to present evidence regarding the individual child and the child's needs in order to appropriately address the issues before the court, as I have found that children do not fit perfectly into the models that science has developed.
Question 6: Please use this space to discuss other issues you want us to know about your candidacy. Haughton: I am chair of the Human Rights Commission. In 2006 I voted that the ordinance protecting sexual orientation include transgender people and complaints against gender identity discrimination. Beyond that, I think it would take me months to enumerate factors that have helped shape my viewpoint on GLBT issues. That is because I've known and interacted with so many people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender that it is a non-event, certainly not noteworthy. I think the most important thing I can tell you about myself is that I will treat everyone in the courtroom fairly, with dignity and respect. As an African-American woman in a predominantly Caucasian male profession, I have been considered an outsider at times in my own profession. I will very consciously take steps to ensure that no one in my courtroom will be subjected to similar attitudes. I will treat everyone as I would expect and wish to be treated. Jerrells: I am firmly committed to the oath that requires judges to perform their judicial duties, by words and conduct, without bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, or any other similar factor, including political views or personal opinions. To me, this oath is more than mere words and should be a guiding principle in each of our lives as everyday citizens. Cure: I would be the first gay person to serve as judge in this county. Of course, this fact alone is not a reason to vote for me. My record of accomplishments and programs can be found at www.elizabethcureforjudge.com Haseman: I have nearly three years of judicial experience, and thirteen years of experience as an attorney. In my years as a judge and a judicial officer, I have heard over 4000 cases, including child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, family law, paternity, child support, guardianship, small claims and protective order matters. I dedicated a significant portion of my private practice to representing the best interest of children in legal proceedings for over ten years. As a judge in the Monroe Circuit Court, I work very hard to ensure that children are protected within our legal system. It is my goal as a judge to ensure that children have a voice in the legal proceedings that so profoundly affect their lives.
About Question 3:
Muehling: ...as long as the gender expression fits within the dress code for all students.
About Question 4:
Githens: (Why or why not?) Counselors and teachers (and school administrators) need to better understand the gender issues that can overwhelm some students. School personnel need to do a better job of halting the harassment some of these students are subjected to.
Muehling: ...for new teacher orientation & training & for initial teacher in-service for beginning of each school year—that would be the mandatory part. (Why or why not?) Because a large portion of people do not understand it completely - particularly distinction between orientation & expression.
About Question 5:
Githens: ...using age-appropriate materials.
Muehling: ...if approval of the curriculum format & content is handled in collaboration w/ the educators.
Other issues you would like us to consider about your candidacy:
Githens: I believe that diversity in all of its manifestations should be celebrated and honored. Our schools should teach tolerance and acceptance, not only of others but of ourselves.
Muehling: I plan to be fair in my assessments, honest in my opinions and practical in my judgements. If that is not acceptable, then a vote should be cast in my opposition.
Stidd: How to deal with disruptive students due to inadequate parenting. How to create an atmosphere that encourages students to take their studies seriously. More emphasis on civics/government/citizenship. More emphasis on personal finances. More help with math & science competency. Beima: I started filling out the questionnaire and decided the issues raised do not in any way determine the readiness of the persons to serve on the RBBCSC school board.... In the 67 years, working with hundreds of school districts, Community Colleges, private schools, etc., I never once ran into the problem you describe in your questionnaire. RBBCSC has the possibility of being the best school district in the State within 3 years. 1st priority is hiring the superintendent for 10 years to give the program continuity. We have had 4 supt's in 6 years. That just won't cut it. The supt. has asked for a new school. The Board is legally bound to provide that building, and the program to go with it.... ( categories: )
|
Upcoming events
 Subscribe to RSS |