Some of the Christian protestors carried signs. Many came with children. (Sam Sanchez)
Self-proclaimed Christians fill chambers, monopolize public comment period, but council votes 8-3 in favor of proposal
SAM SANCHEZ | QSanAntonio
After much public input, the San Antonio City Council passed a new budget today that includes domestic partner benefits for city employees. The vote was 8 for and 3 against.
District 9 Councilwoman Elisa Chan and Councilmen Carlton Soules of District 10 and David Medina of District 5 were the “no” votes.
The vote came after nearly three hours of comments by local citizens. Those against the initiative monopolized the “Citizens to Be Heard” portion of the meeting, with mostly religious and moral objections.
The council chambers were filled with Christian protesters, including some with babies and school-age children. Some held signs that read “Vote for Marriage (I do!). ”
Sometimes the rhetoric got rough. Some speakers threatened political retribution to council members who voted to keep the measure in the budget. Mike Knupke of the San Antonio Family Association said the question of domestic partnership benefits had “awakened the sleeping Christian giant.”
Former Christian radio talk show host Adam McManus went to the podium with his infant son and pregnant wife to say that he did not support giving benefits to “the live-in lovers” of city employees, gay or straight.
Pastor Gerald Ripley, the main organizer of the protests, displayed a picture of his infant grandchild who has only two teeth, saying his grandson had a better bite because the DP initiative was a toothless idea that was fraught with potential for fraud.
One man, Joe Desega, said that he had been in jail 25 times before he found religion. He said he once ministered to “ex-homosexuals” who were dying from AIDS and who, at the time of their deaths, cried out to God for forgiveness.
While most of the Christian protestors spoke specifically about the DP partner line item, others also protested funding for the San Pedro Playhouse because of its production of the gay-themed play Corpus Christi, and against allowing tax dollars to be used for contraception.
Gustavo Garcia Siller, the Catholic archbishop of San Antonio, issued a statement this morning.
“As the shepherd and archbishop of the Catholic Church in San Antonio, I have observed with interest the public debate that is taking place in our city regarding a recent proposal to extend benefits to domestic partners of city employees,” Siller said. “The Catholic Church recognizes as a fundamental human right that all persons have the opportunity to secure adequate health care. I am concerned, nonetheless, by the manner in which the city is proposing to provide health care by giving legal recognition to a new structure that may ultimately result in the undermining of marriage and the weakening of the family unit that is essential to the good of society. ”
Gay activists chose to feature only one main speaker, attorney Eduardo Juarez, co-chair of the Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio, who came to the podium accompanied by a over a dozen community members including Dennis Coleman, executive director of Equality Texas.
The LGBT group presented the City Council with a large plexiglass box filled with almost 3,000 signed cards asking the mayor and council members to support the DP benefits initiative. Former City Councilwoman Elena Guajardo, who’s openly gay, held a large blow-up of one of the yellow cards.
After all the comments from citizens had been heard, Councilwoman Chan made a motion to have the domestic partner initiative pulled out of the budget and voted on separately. This gave an opportunity for each council member to offer their perspective on the issue.
Most of those on the council who were in favor of the benefits said that it was the fair and right thing to do for city employees. Councilman Ray Saldana of District 4 said he would always side with equality.
Chan’s main objections were financial. She feared that the cost estimates would be more than anticipated and questioned the verification process by which couples would qualify for the benefits. Councilman David Medina cited economic factors as well community opposition as the basis for rejecting the proposal.
In endorsing the initiative, Mayor Julian Castro cited the many corporations and cities that offer similar benefits and said, “This is not a new issue — this should have be done some time ago.”
Chan’s breakout motion was voted down by a margin of 7 to 4 clearing the way for the 8 to 3 vote that approved the final budget.
Just minutes after the vote, Equality Texas put sent out an e-mail news blast that summed up the day’s results: “Today’s vote is an affirmation of the City Council’s belief that all San Antonians should be treated equally, with the dignity and respect they deserve. There was opposition. And, there will likely be negative backlash. As we move forward, let us remember that fairness and justice will always be in the best interests of our diverse communities.”
So the catholic church tries to obfuscate its own objections. If you want to understand the church, simply do two things.
1. Google ” [country name] – cartholic church molestation” About the endless and worse hidden molestation of children all over the world
2. Go to http://nobelifs.com/nazis.htm After you see the pictures, you should understand why the church has yet to EXcommunicate the worst murderer in history.
A man born and baptised catholic in very catholic Austria in 1888.
And I first should have said my congratulations to the good people of San Antonio. HOme btw of the best ‘deal” i ever made except marrying my wife (F) United Services Auto Association. JOined 48 years ago.
Okay, it’s over. Now the “sleeping christian giant” can go back to sleep. Hopefully it will be a good long hibernation.
This is not fair. Heterosexual unmarried couples can not get benefits. Why are the homosexuals getting benefits? We need to treat the disease here, and not the symptoms.
We could solve the “live-in lovers” objection by allowing gay couples to get married. You can’t have it both ways. Do you want to support stable families or not? PICK
Why do city employees have to pass someone’s personal religious standards in order to be treated equally under the law? If the city decided to pass laws based on Judaism, I doubt these God-loving folks would be happy about it. These same people constantly talk about the threat of sharia law the United States. But aren’t they doing the same thing by trying to enforce their own religious doctrine into our secular society?
Next time you hear a Catholic official or one of the Church’s many defenders explain that they only have a problem with “marriage” for gay couples, remember this story and know that they are lying.
If gay employees register as being a couple, then they should be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples — until the day comes that the State of Texas allows gay people to get legally married.
Oddly enough, it’s a felony under Texas law for a county clerk to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. Meanwhile, they let millions of people drive without car insurance, and I’m still waiting for the police to catch the guys who broke into my car and stole my music . . .