Skip to comments.(San Antonio) Same-sex partner benefits betray civic, fiduciary trust
Posted on 09/05/2011 8:18:10 AM PDT by Racehorse
City Manager Sheryl Sculley calls herself an agent of social change. That is not her job, but she is using the budget to do it. Her budget proposes insurance benefits for same-sex domestic partners. The plan is bad on several counts.
[. . .]
. . . this proposal is an insult to 6,000 years of law codes, prevailing social traditions and the religious beliefs and moral code of most residents of San Antonio. It is one thing to tolerate or countenance the practice of homosexuality; it is quite another to give it tax support.
It is not the role of the city to subsidize homosexual relationships. It is all the more absurd to do so in the belief, as Sculley said, that this is what a cosmopolitan city does. This implies that traditional morality is provincial and that this is necessary to attract the most talented people. The latter perpetuates a stereotype that homosexuals are more talented.
(Excerpt) Read more at mysanantonio.com ...
Those in favor of providing tax payer funded benefits to domestic partners appear to be rallying. If you do join, please use courtesy and the good arguments I know you have at the ready.
This violates the Texas constitution.
In case I can’t get to it.
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
City Manager Sheryl Sculley is saying that her view of a Utopian society is more important than the mental health and physical safety of the citizens of the city. She would increase the health insurance premiums for ALL to support increased costs of treatment for AIDS, STDs, other related diseases, and mental health associated with deviant sexual behavior.
Male and female genitalia are made for union. Male/male or female/female union can only be achieved by risky and perverted behavior that adds risk to mental and physical health of the deviants, the people close to them, plus the population at large.
So if I understand this right the benefits will be ONLY for “same sex domestic partners”?
So why doesn’t some enterprising attorney in a heterosexual domestic partnership file suit for discrimination?
Why not open the entire can of worms?
To paraphrase, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger upon that article in the Constitution which authorizes government to be used for the purposes of social change."
In an ideal republic, with an electorate of informed and active citizens, social engineering would be banned. And to attempt to use government for such purposes would be treason.
There is no difference between a governmentally established religion, which to not adhere to is a crime, and social change enforced under color of law.
The only acceptable method of social change is persuasion. To use government to force the issue is tyranny pure and simple.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
What does she care? It’s not her money. It’s easy to be liberal with other people’s money.
So why doesnt some enterprising attorney in a heterosexual domestic partnership file suit for discrimination?
Why not open the entire can of worms?
I'd rather see the Texas Attorney General's office sue the City of San Antonio and their city cmnager. This is a direct violation of the 2005 Texas constitutional amendment prohibiting state recognition of same sex marriage or "marriage like" arrangements. The amendment specifically prohibits subordinate entities like cities and counties from recognizing them too.
Unfortunately, it will be the people of San Antonio who end up bearing the burden if the city is sued. I'd go for suing Sculley though. She's an overpaid tw*t.
Thanks for the ping to the Homosexual Agenda List.
The author showed up to defend her letter. Though she writes and argues with courtesy and rationality, seems like the pro homosexual community does not debate in the same spirit. Not sure, but it seems like friends of the homosexual agenda have been called in.
In this city there can’t be such one-sided support for publicly funded domestic partnerships.
make “one-sided” read “lop-sided”