Pe. Michael Rodríguez defendendo a Doutrina Católica na Prefeitura de El paso contra o … In El Paso, Texas, maybe a year or so ago, City Council passed an ordinance extending health-care benefits to …More
Pe. Michael Rodríguez defendendo a Doutrina Católica na Prefeitura de El paso contra o …
In El Paso, Texas, maybe a year or so ago, City Council passed an ordinance extending health-care benefits to unmarried "partners" of city employees. Various groups of El Pasoans came out in public opposition to this measure, both from moral and fiscal points-of-view. The citizens forced a special referendum vote on the issue (not an easy thing to pull off in itself.) In that special election, voters repealed City Council's action by a 55-45% margin.
Soon thereafter City Council proposed to proceed anyway, ignoring the vote of the citizens. Public opposition was successful at that time in preventing them from doing so. Once again, Council came back to fly in the face of the vote of the people (not to mention objective morality) and push this agenda forward again.
On June 14, 2011,(Pentecost Tuesday -within the octave of Pentecost) City Council once again voted - amongst themselves - on whether or not to respect the vote of the citizens and objective morality.
Below is a link to the video stream of that discussion. Should you choose to watch the entire discussion - most of it will be self-evident. There is one detail, however, that might not be so clear. Somehow, when the public referendum was held, the city later interpreted it as denying those benefits not only to "partners" of employees - but also to other classes who, of course, do deserve those benefits, such as retired firefighters and police personnel. But by managing to make it appear as though these other classes were also denied benefits, those in favor of extending benefits to unmarried "domestic partners" were able to gain more political clout for their position. A lot revolves around this particular nuance.
In El Paso, Texas, maybe a year or so ago, City Council passed an ordinance extending health-care benefits to unmarried "partners" of city employees. Various groups of El Pasoans came out in public opposition to this measure, both from moral and fiscal points-of-view. The citizens forced a special referendum vote on the issue (not an easy thing to pull off in itself.) In that special election, voters repealed City Council's action by a 55-45% margin.
Soon thereafter City Council proposed to proceed anyway, ignoring the vote of the citizens. Public opposition was successful at that time in preventing them from doing so. Once again, Council came back to fly in the face of the vote of the people (not to mention objective morality) and push this agenda forward again.
On June 14, 2011,(Pentecost Tuesday -within the octave of Pentecost) City Council once again voted - amongst themselves - on whether or not to respect the vote of the citizens and objective morality.
Below is a link to the video stream of that discussion. Should you choose to watch the entire discussion - most of it will be self-evident. There is one detail, however, that might not be so clear. Somehow, when the public referendum was held, the city later interpreted it as denying those benefits not only to "partners" of employees - but also to other classes who, of course, do deserve those benefits, such as retired firefighters and police personnel. But by managing to make it appear as though these other classes were also denied benefits, those in favor of extending benefits to unmarried "domestic partners" were able to gain more political clout for their position. A lot revolves around this particular nuance.
Marina Leocádio Alves Bezerra
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Legendas?