VOICES FOR MARRIAGE

EXPANDED FACT SHEET

1. We hold that marriage is the legally binding relationship between one man and one woman.

This relationship can only be voided by going through a legal divorce.

Homosexual couples can never be married per definition.

Cohabitating heterosexual couples can undo their relationship without the necessity of going through a legal divorce.

2. We hold that marriage is the foundational relationship in every society and has been from the beginning.

A society that officially or tacitly adopts any other definition of marriage will become weaker and experience an ongoing decline in its quality of life.

I am unaware of any society that has flourished, or even functioned well, without marriage between one woman and one man being the fundamental relationship in it.

3. A vote for domestic partner benefits is a vote AGAINST upholding the institution of marriage.

Lowering the bar to allow more people to receive benefits removes a powerful factor in motivating an employee to commit to a legally binding relationship.

Unwillingness to make such a commitment reveals selfishness and a weakness in morality, both of which would likely render an applicant to be an undesirable hire if such attributes surfaced during a vetting process.

4. We maintain that strong families are vital in developing a strong city.

There’s a proverb that goes:

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.

For want of a shoe, the rider was lost.

For want of a rider, the battle was lost.

A single strong family is as important to our city as that nail was to the battle.

Each strong family added to our city will increase the overall strength of our city.

Consider the Spurs and the Cowboys. Those organizations are continuously looking to add strength which will result in a better outcome toward their goal of winning the championship.

If the standard for being a member on their team was lowered, the team would soon become mediocre.

As the percentage of strong families increases in our city, so will the prospect of our becoming and remaining a leading city, a championship city, and not merely a city like those that are supposedly “more progressive” than we are.

5. “The intact, biological, married family remains the gold standard for family life in the United States. Children are most likely to thrive—economically, socially and psychologically—in this family form.” (See http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/579647)

Cohabitating households with children have now replaced divorce as the greater threat to the quality and stability of children’s lives.

“Children in cohabitating households are more likely to suffer from a range of emotional and social problems—drug use, depression and dropping out of school—compared to children in intact, married families.”

These are the conclusions of 18 family scholars from leading institutions including the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Chicago and the University of Texas at Austin.

We believe when there are problems at home, employee performance is impacted negatively.

6. “Marriage is an important public good, associated with a range of economic, health, educational and safety benefits that help local, state and federal governments serve the common good.” (See website in #5.)

This is the second conclusion stated by the authors of “Why Marriage Matters” after their survey of more than 250 peer-reviewed journal articles on marriage and family life.

7. “The benefits of marriage extend to poor, working-class and minority communities…” (See website in #5.)

That’s the third conclusion offered by those same authors. Number 5 on your fact sheet is the first conclusion they put forth.

8. The assertion that it’s difficult to hire qualified, talented persons without domestic partner benefits is difficult to believe.

In these days of unemployment, one would expect at least dozens of highly qualified applicants for each open position.

Have you ever shoveled snow in the morning before you drove to work?

Have you seen the prices of houses up north, out east and out west?

Have you ever paid state income tax?

Have you driven the Beltway in Washington D.C. or the freeways in Los Angeles or Houston?

San Antonio is a GREAT city to move to. As we become a championship city, employees with strong families will be chomping at the bit to accept a job in San Antonio. They will be exciting additions to our team.

9. This proposal has the potential to be very costly.

It WILL cost more each year. I don’t know how any thoughtful person could dispute that.

Premiums will rise as benefits are paid out for AIDS. AIDS involves very high pay-outs as we are all undoubtedly aware.

If CPS and SAWS implement this proposal, their health costs are going to increase. They will make those high pay-outs for AIDS too. Our electric bill will go up. Our water bill will go up. Our taxes will go up.

10. This proposal could cost up to $12,960,000 the first year!

Editor's second note: It has been very difficult to obtain the information on how many employees would now be covered who aren't already. The mayor has been quoted as saying on Aug. 31 the cost will be $4 Million the first year. That's a documentable figure that can be opposed. Leave the $12 Million figure alone for now. Don't use it until further notice.

Editor's note: The updated number of city employees is being cited as 11,500. Using the same math, the cost would be $12, 420,000.

According to the U.S. Census 2007, 18% of the population in Texas are living together; that is, they are domestic partners. This includes both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

At two district budget hearings the figure of $300,000 was the answer given to the question, “How much is this going to cost?” At one district, the number of people mentioned was 50. That works out to $6000 per employee.

The city of San Antonio has 12,000 employees. If 18% of the city employees have live-in partners in line with the rest of Texas, that comes to 2,160 employees.

If the city paid $6000 for 2,160 employees, the cost would be $12,960,000.

We can't afford that.

It’s time to delete domestic benefits from the 2012 budget.

11. We don’t believe this domestic benefits proposal reflects the priorities of our citizens.

As we’ve attended district budget hearings, the following items are far higher on the felt need priority list than domestic partner benefits:

• Animal Care Services
• Big Brothers, Big Sisters
• Boys and Girls Clubs
• Clearing a creek in District 2
• College Students Ambassador Program
• Dealing with a junkyard in District 3
• Graffiti Clean-up
• Libraries could use more computers and other resources
• Providing Shade for Public Swimming Pools
• Sidewalks
• Summer Youth Employment Program
• Teaching teens to work in District 2
• The Take Note Music Program 262-9647

The City Council has heard the same things we have heard. They took notes as we did.

12. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

A proposal pandering to the homosexual interest group was withdrawn by its sponsor on January 29, 1998 when it became evident it would be defeated. The city council that day even defeated a motion to put it to a vote.

This morning, I am speaking as the officially designated representative for four groups of Pastors and Ministry Leaders with a combined membership totaling 193.

We and the people we lead are God-fearing, hard-working, tax paying, usually docile people but we will stand up every time a proposal such as this comes forward.

We have moral conviction. We stood up on January 29, 1998. We’re standing up now.

We vote. If the proposal passes this year, we will keep standing and voting until it’s turned back in one or two or four years and some political careers will be truncated.

13. We believe District Council Members serve properly when they heed the expressed will of their constiutents.

On January 29, 1998, then Councilman Raul Prado was asked why he decided as he did. Here is his reply. “I checked with my community,…and I feel that when I cast my vote, I am voting as their instrument.”

We ask our current Council Members to follow former Councilman Prado’s example.

14. We believe the proposed domestic partners benefit should be deleted from the 2012 budget.

It's a vote against marriage.

It would result in weaker families and thus a weaker city.

It is likely not even in the top ten priorities of our citizens.

*          *          *          *          *

Now I’ll take some questions pertaining to the institution of marriage, strong families, economic ramifications of the proposal and appropriate representation by District Council Members. Pastor Charles Flowers will stand by to assist me.

Contact Information

Pastor Gerald Ripley          Pastor Charles Flowers

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it