10
Aug
2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Ryan.McCann
Please Call Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and Urge Him to Veto "Domestic Partnership" Ordinance 213: 317-327-3601

Please Call Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and Urge Him to Veto "Domestic Partnership" Ordinance 213:  317-327-3601

  220px-GregBallard

 

      The Indianapolis City-County Council is set to approve "Domestic Partnership" Ordinance 213 this Monday at 7pm.  Yesterday on the Greg Garrison radio show, prompted by an IFI question, Mayor Ballard revealed that he is still undecided on whether he will approve this ordinance or Veto it.  The final decision rests with him.

      We do not alert you to issues like these and ask you to take action if we do not believe you can make a difference on the outcome.  Here are 2 things that you can do that could decide whether this ordinance is passed into law or defeated:

 

1.  RIGHT NOW - Call Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's office (317-327-3601).  There will be a nice lady who will answer your call and will take a message for you to share with the Mayor.  Respectfully urge the Mayor to VETO Domestic Partnership Ordinance 213.  They only take calls from 9am - 5pm, so call now.

 

2.  Please join us at the hearing on Monday at 7pm so the City-County Council members understand that there are a significant number of Hoosiers who respectfully disagree with them on this issue (it looks as if the Democrat led Council will pass this by a vote of 20-9).  Here is the address:

Indianapolis Marion County Building
200 East Washington St
Indianapolis, IN 46204

 

*You can respond to this email if you would like to attend the hearing with IFI or have any questions. 

 

 

What would this ordinance do?

 

  • Proposed Domestic Partnership Ordinance 213 would create a legal entity somewhat similar to a marriage license called a "Declaration of Domestic Partnership".  Currently the City of Indianapolis uses taxpayer dollars to include the spouse and children of city employees into the benefits package. This ordinance would create a competing legal entity to marriage, "Declaration of Domestic Partnership," for those heterosexual couples who choose not to marry and homosexual couples who cannot legally marry, so that their significant others would also get these taxpayer benefits.  

 

Why would this be a problem?

 

  • "Domestic Partnerships" will not appease homosexual activists...it will only give them greater leverage in their effort to overturn marriage laws and silence those who disagree with them.  Militant Leftist homosexual activists around the country have attempted (with some success) to convince elected officials that granting some of the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual couples is the equitable thing to do (whether through "domestic partnerships", "civil unions" or other legal creations).
    • California is a great example why this is a mistake.  In California, elected officials attempted to appease these homosexual activists by passing a statewide "domestic partnership" law.  Were these activists satisfied with these legislative victories?  No.  In their efforts to overturn the definition of marriage as one man/one woman in California, same-sex marriage supporters claimed that "domestic partnerships" were "discriminatory", "stigmatized gays and lesbians" and turned "gays and lesbians" into "second, third or even fourth class citizens" (Perry v. Schwarzenegger).  They took the olive branch of "domestic partnerships" and beat marriage supporters over the head with it.
  • The City of Indianapolis doesn't have the money.  There are competing reports that the City of Indianapolis will finish 2012 anywhere from $30 - $70 million over budget.  Cuts to public safety are not off the table.  The fiscal analysis of this ordinance estimates that the domestic partnership ordinance would cost at least $200,000 a year.  However, we believe it will cost significantly more.  Possibly as much as $1 million per year or more annually.  This is not a time for pork barrel spending.  This is a time for fiscal responsibility. 
  • Domestic Partnership Ordinance 213 is not really about benefits...it's about government promoting homosexuality through the law.  The fact of the matter is that there are only a handful of homosexual City of Indianapolis employees that would even qualify for these additional benefits and even the "GLBT" community admits that same-sex couples have higher per-capita income than their heterosexual counterparts.  This ordinance is simply not needed.  So why are the Democrats in the Indianapolis City-County Council (with Councilor Angela Mansfield leading the charge) pushing this so hard?  Because the homosexual advocacy groups that helped them get elected want this badly.  Not because of the taxpayer dollars they will receive, but because of the message it sends.  Their goal is not "equality," it is convincing (or forcing if need be) the American public that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.  Through this ordinance it will be the public policy of the City of Indianapolis that there is no difference between married husband and wife relationships, cohabiting man/woman relationships outside of marriage or two men who have a sexual relationship together.  The City of Indianapolis is prepared to shift from a child centric, marriage model for rewarding workers with benefits to an individual sexual preference model where two men shacking up is the moral equivaliant to a lifelong commitment between husband and wife.  This public pronouncement will make it more likely that the Chick-fil-A's of the world will continue to be attacked, not less.  After all, it is precisely Dan Cathy's understanding that not all sexual preferences are equal, and in fact, that some sexual preferences are flat out wrong, that led to the Mayors of Chicago and Boston promising to illegally bar Chick-fil-A from opening stores in those cities.  Don't be fooled.  That can happen here. 

 

We have have created a special facebook page to pass along information about this ordinance:  

Facebook%20logo www.facebook.com/TheBuckStopsWithBallard

 Buck Stops with Ballard

Comments: (0)

0 Comments