published Saturday, August 2nd, 2014

Value marriage; say 'no' to ordinance


In Thursday's general election and Republican primary, the Free Press endorses:

Governor: Bill Haslam

U.S. Senator: Lamar Alexander

3rd District Congress: Weston Wamp

27th District, State House: Patsy Hazlewood

County Mayor: Jim Coppinger

County Commission

District 1: Randy Fairbanks

District 6: Joe Graham

District 7: Sabrena Turner

District 8: Kenny Smith

District 9: Chester Bankston

General Sessions Court, Division 1: Christie Sell

Juvenile Court: Rob Philyaw

Public Defender: Steve Smith

Criminal Court Clerk: Gwen Tidwell

Board of Education: District 3 Greg Martin

District 5: Patrick Hampton

District 6: Ballard Scearce

District 8: David Testerman

District 9: Steve Highlander

Supreme Court Judges: Retain

Domestic Partners Ordinance: Against

Of what value is marriage?

If marriage between a man and a woman is not of special importance, if it's no more valuable than a man and a woman living together or two men or two women sharing a relationship, Chattanoogans should flock to the polls on Thursday and overwhelmingly vote for the city's domestic partners ordinance.

But if marriage is really something meaningful, if it is something unique and ordained of God (or a foundation of society, depending on your belief system), if it as an institution really has special -- and legal -- benefits to society unlike any other relationship, as has been the case for thousands of years, Chattanooga voters should say so with their votes against the ordinance.

Opponents say the ordinance -- which passed with the narrowest 5-4 vote in the City Council in November -- has nothing to do with marriage, that it's a matter of fairness, a matter of treating people who live in committed relationships under the same roof the same as those in a traditional marriage.

But that takes us back to the original question: Of what value, then, is traditional marriage? And why have we given it special status in our laws and public policies?

What, for instance, do cities and corporations which have granted such benefits think of traditional marriage as an institution, or an environment in which to raise children, if it's no more valuable than two people living together?

One could argue a domestic partners ordinance is even anti-marriage. Since city employees and their partners only have to live together for a year, have their names together on several documents and offer a sworn affidavit confirming their relationship, why choose marriage if they can get the benefits?

Somehow, putting that domestic partners affidavit up against a marriage license -- which, of course, doesn't guarantee bliss -- pales in comparison.

And it should be interesting to see how the city determines whether "the city employee and the domestic partner have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring," as the ordinance reads.

Because remember how pro-abortion supporters say they don't want the government in their bedrooms? The domestic partners ordinance makes it a part of the law to know how two "share one another's lives."

Passage of the law also will increase the drain on the city's budget, but nobody can say for sure how much. One estimate was $180,000, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the budget, but officials admitted they really have no idea how much it might increase.

To be blunt, a domestic partners ordinance sanctions relationships that are clearly less beneficial than marriage.

For opposite-sex couples, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development reports that "cohabitating relationships are less stable than marriage and that instability is increasing."

For example:

• Children's emotional development is poorer if a parent is cohabitating than if a parent is married.

• Cohabitating women are more likely than married women to suffer physical and sexual abuse.

For same-sex couples, the Family Research Council reports that evidence suggests "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples when it comes to relationship duration, monogamy vs. promiscuity, relationship commitment, number of children being raised, health risks and the rates of intimate partner violence.

For example:

• A Census Bureau report indicates 57.7 percent of women stay married for 20 years or longer, while a Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census indicates only 5 percent of homosexuals describe their relationship lasting more than 20 years.

• A United States Department of Justice study revealed that 15.4 percent of homosexual men and 11.4 percent of homosexual women cited intimate partner violence, while only .26 percent of married women and .05 percent of married men cited such violence.

There are, of course, exceptions to each case given above, but any way you slice it, marriage comes out the winner.

We believe, further, God honors the marriage of a man and a woman and holds that relationship higher than any other. In Proverbs, for instance, we read that "righteousness makes a nation (or city or state) great, but sin diminishes any people."

Today, however, we live in a more faithless and more permissive society where almost anything goes. We believe those who live a life to less than God's highest standards and more to political correctness will ultimately experience regret.

Chattanoogans can and should vote "no" on the domestic partnerships ordinance and tell city officials God meant what he said and the state's voters meant what they said when they approved a marriage-protection amendment in 2006.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
lkeithlu said...

As been the case for thousands of years? Hogwash. Marriage between one man and one woman is a modern state contract.

August 2, 2014 at 7:08 a.m.
LibDem said...

"Of what value, then, is traditional marriage?"

You've reduced it to a matter of health insurance. That's between you and your god, of course. My great grandma married the guy her parents selected. She didn't get health insurance or a t-shirt.

August 2, 2014 at 9:53 a.m.



"(b) The legal union in matrimony of only one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only recognized marriage in this state. (c) Any policy, law or judicial interpretation that purports to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one (1) man and one (1) woman is contrary to the public policy of Tennessee"; Tenn. Code Ann. ' 36 3 113

Too many Liberal Democrats are Scofflaws and utilize sleazy deception and other evil tactics to push their immoral lifestyles onto society. This is an example of the Obamah administration.

Malleus Deum Verum

August 2, 2014 at 11:41 p.m.


My Dearest Friends: 'Wife', in Hebrew, means 'Woman'!...(female)

My Dearest Friends:'Husband, in Hebrew, means 'Man'...(male)

And, may I say: 'Wife', in Greek, means 'Woman'!...(female)

And, may I say: Husband', in Greek, means 'Man'! ...(male)

Capiche? The very next step is to beastiality and a demand to 'legally' allow [humans] to 'marry'dogs, horses, mules, other animals. (And to get them insured at innocent tax-payers expense. They would, of course, be labeled 'CIVIL UNIONS'. Legislated. This is not a joke!

Malleus Deum Verum

August 3, 2014 at 12:04 a.m.
nocomment said...


Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the TN marriage statute gets into Federal Court and is scrutinized with respect to the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, here is what happens:

August 3, 2014 at 12:32 a.m.


You must look a little closer.

*** It is in no way a privilege of any U.S. Citizen to change the definition of any word or related institution associated with said word. (Husband=Male, Wife=Female).

*** No protections of U.S. Citizens are denied by maintaining folkways, morays, and/or traditions of society.

*** Powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

*** Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. (my edit for sake of changes to interpretation applied)kwo

Malleus Deum Verum

August 3, 2014 at 1:10 a.m.


A Sovereign Nation Has the Right to Reward Individuals Within Unions (Marriages) Who Have the Greatest Expectation to Procreate. [Nations Need Taxpayers]. A Sovereign Nation Has the Right to Deny Reward (Insurance/Tax Write-Offs/Death Benefits to Spouses, etc.)to Individual Unions Which do Not Have the Expectation to Procreate. Also, A Sovereign Nation Has the Right to Discourage Supporting Individuals Who Cost Their Innocent Tax Payers Over $20,000,000,000 [Twenty Billion Dollars] Per Year. The Average Cost to Treat One Case of HIV/AIDS is Over $400,000 [Four Hundred Thousand Dollars Per Lifetime. (Source: Center for Disease Control {CDC} HIV Surveillance Report 2009, Vol 21). So, My Question to You: "Shall We Change The Definition of Husband to Mean Woman, Or, The Definition of Wife to Mean Man? Shall We Do This Even Though These Unions Go Against The Wisdom and Needs of a Sovereign United States of America? This Deadly Chosen Lifestyle is Not to be Forced Upon a Sovereign Nation.

Malleus Deum Verum

August 3, 2014 at 1:22 a.m.


"Once you have been infected with HIV, you will always carry it in your body."

"There is no cure for HIV."

Citizens! Please! Where are your brains???

Do you want your family tax dollars paying from $400,0000.00 to $600,000.000 per infected homosexual who chose a lifestyle Jesus Christ labels an abomination?

Malleus Deum Verum

August 3, 2014 at 2:06 a.m.
fairmon said...

This ordinance is a fiscal issue not a moral question. There is not justification for spending one dollar much less near $200,000 per year for tax payers to support employee domestic partners. The reason some give is it is "fair", to whom is it fair? Is it fair to those required to pay for it? It makes the city more competitive? What position in city government is so critical an employee must be retained at all cost? Why does the city need to spend more for employee compensation when it is already above the private sector for the same or similar work in essentially every case. How many city employees are leaving to accept a job doing like or similar work? The number is at or near zero with retention at excellent levels already. A more pressing question would be why does city or county government pay for benefits for any family member instead of the employee paying for family members at the group rates? If the government is self insured then certainly nothing should be paid by tax payers for family members of city or county government employees.

VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL unless you would vote for a property tax increase at some point in the future. a couple hundred thousand here and a couple hundred thousand there for this and similar other peoples money legislation by politicians using tax payer money to gain favor and votes will indeed require more tax revenue from some source.

Those making a pitch for rejecting the proposal on moral grounds are just as wrong as those supporting it for other reasons that really make no sense, you cannot legislate morals where there is no harm to others. In this case the harm is unjustified financial support of an unjustified proposal to increase the cost of city government without improving city governance.

August 3, 2014 at 5:29 a.m.
fairmon said...

VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL. Those that resist this ridiculous proposal on moral grounds could solve the problem by supporting the elimination of the over 1000 laws that discriminate against those for their own reason remain single. Is such discrimination the right and moral thing to do? Why has the government passed laws that give people an incentive to marry? Where is the outrage regarding the discrimination against the minority in the case of singles? Why should singles pay a higher tax rate than those that marry and why does the gap widen when those married decide to have a house full of rug rats? Why should singles be required to help support those opting for marriage and kids? Why are those preferring to rent required to help those preferring to buy a house? The immoral list of discrimination against singles is long, long standing and increasing. Eliminate that discrimination and take away the incentive for such ridiculous initiatives as domestic partner benefits.

Why should government decide what the "American dream" is for everyone? Why not allow each to have their own American dream without incentives and government influence? Individual freedom and liberty was the initial American dream but some have chosen to define it differently.

August 3, 2014 at 5:54 a.m.


fairmon said...


vote for a property tax increase at some point in the future. a couple hundred thousand here and a couple hundred thousand there for this and similar other peoples money legislation by politicians using tax payer money to gain favor and votes will indeed require more tax revenue from some source."

I do so much agree with fairmon!

Little-by-little, deceptively, within the Occult, the Chattanooga Homosexuals will Tax Innocent Citizens to death! Property, Sewage Taxes, etc.

They want Us to pay hundres of thousands of dollars to them for their (what has been labeled) 'THE HOMOSEXUAL CULTURE OF DEATH' ...'They' say that.

City of Chattanooga! Do Not Be Fooled into paying $400,000 to $600,000 per lifetime per HIV/AIDS Infected Homosexual Patient.

Malleus Deum Verum

August 3, 2014 at 12:59 p.m.


African-Americans and other disenfranchised people among the 'so

called' minority populations will bear the pain of the burden of this deceptive attempt to raise future taxes.

The poor of Chattanooga Tennessee cannot afford the increased taxes that will gradually be levied against them to support the 'going bankrupt' Hospice Centers treating the Homosexual HIV/AIDS Patients. Many other harms to society wil occur as a result if this ordinance is passed in favor of the part of the Homosexual Community that is infected with HIV/AIDS, The 'Super-Bug' Gonorrhea ,,(very often much worse than Homosexual's who have HIV/AIDS), Opportunistic Infections passed on even by Movie Theatre seats where an infected person has been seated, etc., etc., etc.


Malleus Deum Verum

August 3, 2014 at 1:03 p.m.
conservative said...

God's word very plainly tells us that He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual sins most notably Homosexuality/sodomy.

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire Jude 1:7 ESV

How will God judge Chattanooga if it endorses sexual immorality?

August 5, 2014 at 2 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.