Arrogance of power has been at epidemic levels at the Lindsay Street Cartel HQ too long. In elected arrogance of power, the elected assumes we are a government by and of their own personal will, similar to a tail wagging a dog.
In 2010, elected arrogance of power stripped health insurance benefits from police and fire that had worked for the benefit for up to 25 years. Now in 2013 the city has the audacity to give the same health insurance benefits taken from retirees to non-employees who have sex with a city employee.
That's right, sex under the same roof for a year is the criteria for committed relationship. Will a new department be needed to abate fraud?
I cannot stop laughing at government drafting such an absurd ordinance. The ordinance reads like a comic strip. That leaves you asking, are they kidding?
When government acts in a manner that is inconsistent with prior policy and rule making, it is the job of a government by the people and for the people to intervene and let the people vote by referendum.
I just cannot fathom taking insurance from retirees and cutting the pension, then expanding health insurance to non-city employees that are just trying the living together thing. The city of Chattanooga has also crafted terminology to bypass the state Constitution’s definition of marriage.
To those that would argue we are government by representation, sure we are, until the representatives act in a highly contradictive manner, such as taking health insurance from the older workers and expanding health insurance to the live-ins of city employees.
See you at the voting booth.
* * *
There are so many opinion pieces in the Chattanoogan right now regarding the Domestic Partner Ordinance. Most all the authors are against this ordinance.
1. The cost. It cannot even be determined right now, because no one knows how many city employees are “shacked up” and having sex with non-city employees and how many children there are.
2. The moral aspect. It is not a marriage contract in the State of Tennessee, as common law marriage and homosexual marriage are not recognized.
3. Lack of commitment. The couples cannot commit by marriage but the taxpayers are supposed to support that choice and pay the money.
4. The unfairness. The city has stripped benefits from retirees because of cost but are going to use funds to cover the city employees who have live in sex partners, and the live in’s children.
5. The arrogance and demi-God attitude of Mr. Hakeen, who does not think the public has a right to disrupt their rulings by petition for a referendum. They should just take what he says and sit down and shut up. He has forgotten that he is supposed to be for the people, not cram his ideas down the peoples’ throats.
6. District 2 Councilman Jerry Mitchell. He said he had checked with his district and that is what the majority of people wanted. Many people are very disappointed and angry with him. I live in District 2 and sadly Jerry is my councilman. I have yet to meet one person who is in favor of his vote. I wonder where these citizens are that are in District 2 that are for this ordinance.
7. Validation of criteria met. How do you determine these couples meet the criteria of having sex and being under the same roof for one year? How do you continue to monitor that this is still the case? Do you add additional cost by having a fraud and abuse department or do you just look the other way as a small price to pay?
8. The five council persons who voted yes are out of touch with their voters in their districts. Over 50 percent of registered voters signed the petition.
9. Illegals being covered. Do you have to be legally in the United States to have sex with a city employee for one year and then you are covered by insurance with the citizen’s tax dollars? Citizen status is not covered, only sex and residency is.
10. Other companies are covering domestic partners. Just because “for profit” organizations are covering domestic partners doesn’t mean we should spend our tax dollars for insurance coverage for people living with and having sexual relations with a city employee. You know the old saying, “Just because someone jumps off a bridge doesn’t mean you have to also”. Let these people sign up for Affordable Care Act coverage.
11. Other needs the city has. There are plenty of other needs the city has that the tax money can be spent on instead of this ordinance. What about the roads and sewers? What about reinstating and paying for retirees benefits?
Stop the insanity and stop the ordinance. Vote against it. Send a message to the five council members and maybe next time, they really will check with their district residents.
See you at the voting booth.
* * *
Suzanne, I live in District 2 and I 100 percent support Jerry Mitchell's vote and several of my neighbor's also stand behind his vote. And while I support the choice for citizens to oppose the ordinance and also the ability to start a petition drive, I adamantly disagree that this was done for anything other that the "homosexual" aspect of the ordinance. I have heard many that supported the petition cite the "moral" issue. Suzanne's number two reason to oppose the ordinance, "The moral aspect." Well, with all due respect to Suzanne, April, Mark West and company, I do not feel that it is "moral" to lie to Chattanooga citizens in order to get them to sign the petition. And that is what precisely happened to me and a group of other Chattanooga citizens.
The day after Thanksgiving, I was walking into the clubhouse of a local golf course. I was approached by a guy (I am very familiar with this guy and I have played in the same group with him on numerous occasions over the past several years. He is always friendly to me as I am to him and I have always enjoyed talking to him.) and he asked if I was a city resident and I told him I was and I then noticed the clipboard in his hand. I then drew the conclusion on what was on his clipboard; "The Petition." So I then responded that I did not have a problem with gay city employees being able to get insurance for their partner and that I wasn't interested in signing. He then shares that if the ordinance is signed in to law, then men could walk into the women's restroom, expose their genitalia (he did not use that exact word) and not be fired. At this point I am thinking to myself, "Would that not be considered sexual assault, which is a felony in Tennessee."
Another gentleman (another man with who I am quite familiar) overhears our conversation and explains that sex changes would also be required to be covered by the city. At this point, there are several other customers in the vicinity that could hear our conversation, but they did not join in with the discussion. I then excused myself from the conversation. The volunteer with the petition did approach me again 20 or 30 minutes later to ensure me that didn't want me to feel pressured to sign the petition and that he was only sharing what would happen with the adopting of the ordinance.
Now, I do not want it to come across as though I am stating that all of the petition drive volunteers were engaged of similar type fear-based tactics, I am simply sharing a personal experience. However, I do wonder how many other citizens were misinformed to gain their signature?
* * *
I'm sorry - but this opposition to benefit packages for domestic partners feels less about economics and pension plans and more about disapproval, judgment and hate - inspired by religious fanaticism. It reminds me of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. I hope I'm wrong - I really do.
But if I'm right - Fred Phelps and his cast of idiots are proud of Chattanooga today. The thought of Fred Phelps celebrating anything makes me sick to my stomach - much less his approval of those opposed to an ordinance recognizing a committed legitimate partnership.
I don't claim to know anything - I do claim to know how something makes me feel. Enough of this nonsense - do the right thing - allow these benefits to happen and let Chattanooga continue its path of becoming one of the great small cities in this country.