2012-05-16_HRC_minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Human Rights Commission May 16, 2012 - Minutes Page 4 of 8 Brisbois commented that the role of the Human Rights Commission has traditionally been to protect the rights of minorities. Commissioner Brisbois continued her review of the Committee's proposed resolution, stating that the next three paragraphs basically articulated the position of the HRC in opposing the proposed amendment. Equal protection under the law would be denied to certain Roseville residents. Brisbois added that the Commission had heard from many Roseville residents that they would not feel part of our community if this amendment passed, noting that the Commission's charge included making sure that Roseville government was responsive to all. Commissioner Brisbois said the resolution intentionally did not include any labels such as gay or lesbian, because the committee wanted to make a broader statement that the Commission recognizes all non - traditional families in Roseville, an issue raised at last week's public forum. The last whereas paragraph recognized the personal and thoughtful insight of the many residents who provided testimony and written comments to the Commission. Commissioner Brisbois concluded her report by noting that the committee felt that it was within the Commission's advisory role to recommend that the City Council also take a position against this constitutional amendment, noting that the two resolutions before the Commission only differed in that the first included this recommendation to the Council and the second did not. In response to a comment Commissioner Brisbois said the resolution intentionally did not include any religious arguments either for or against the amendment because it was not within the HRC's purview. The Chair then read the report's last paragraph that Commissioner Brisbois was referring to, which indicated that the committee had heard the religious arguments for and against the amendment, and concluded with the statement However, inserting the HRC into that debate is not reasonably related to our purpose as defined in city code. Chair Grefenberg explained that the HRC was not speaking for the people of Roseville or for the City Council; but based upon its responsibilities as the Human Rights Commission it was speaking for the Commission only. He then asked if there were any further questions or issues which the Commission wished to discuss. As to the issue of whether any references to religion should be included in the resolution, Commissioner Kris Doneen agreed that they were not relevant to the Commission role but noted that the proposed constitutional amendment limits the religious freedom-s for churches that do want to allow same sex marriages. Commissioner Brisbois moved and Commissioner Doneen seconded a motion to pass a resolution publicly opposing the proposed constitutional amendment and recommending that the City Council pass a resolution opposing the proposed constitutional amendment.