If you're familiar with Indiana, you know it's a very conservative state. People here tend to like things the way they are and loathe any kind of change. The state hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since 1964.
Currently, the state is debating a constitutional ammendment that would not only ban gay marriage, but disallow courts from ruling in favor of civil unions.
The proposed ammendment reads like this:
(a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Well, today, Eli Lilly and company sent a letter to the Speaker of the Indiana House, Pat Bauer, a Democrat whose position is not all that clear. In that letter, Lilly stated its opposition to the ammendment.
Dear Speaker Bauer:
Thank you for asking for our view on the proposed legislation SJR 7, Section 2, (b) and whether Lilly provides domestic partner benefits. Headquartered in Indianapolis, Lilly is one of the largest private employers in Indiana, employing nearly 16,000 people in this state.
In January of 2004, Lilly made the decision to offer domestic partner benefits. Uncertainty around the current language of SJR 7, Section 2, (b) has raised concerns with many Lilly employees in Indiana that these benefits may be at risk. As a result of this uncertainty, some employees may choose to leave Indiana to work in a state where these benefits are perceived not to be threatened.
Given the great lengths Lilly takes to attract and retain top talent from around the world, we oppose any legislation that might impair our ability to offer competitive employee benefits or negatively impact our recruitment and retention.
Beyond this, we are concerned that the proposed legislation sends an unwelcoming signal to current and future employees by making Indiana appear intolerant. As a result, we believe this amendment works against Indiana's stated desire to broaden its appeal to attract new businesses to the state.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If I may be of further assistance, please contact me at [phone number].
Sincerely,
Tony Murphy, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Thanks to Blue Indiana for transcribing the letter.
And Lilly is right. If Lilly wants to continue to attract quality people from all over the world, it really needs to be able show that its new hires to the headquarters in Indianapolis will be able to work in an open and tolerant environment.
Unfortunately, many of the people of Indiana aren't all that open to or tolerant of people who are different from white heterosexual Hoosiers.
The comments on the Indianapolis Star's message board are more than a little disturbing.
Esther writes:
How long and far can this go. I am against gay marriage and hope that Indiana can and will take a stand and be intolerant. How long before decide that it's ok for human animal marriage.
jrhdwf indianapolis continues Esther's madness with this:
Whether Lilly is prepared to admit it or not, the concept of marriage is a biblical one. To change the meaning of the word, nullifies what it is. A marriage is a union between an man and a woman, with the expectation of procreation
No Surprise weighs in:
From what I've read, Lilly uses parts of aborted fetuses in the production of their antibiotic medication for children. Lilly's leap from exploiting aborted fetuses to promoting gay marriage is not a big one, in my mind. Anything goes at Lilly. Not surprised...
Ah, yes....antibiotics made of aborted fetuses. No Surprise was asked for a link on that several times, but he/she was shockingly unable to find it.
Oh well writes:
why does Lilly want to be able to attract gays in the first place???)
To which oh well responded:
Because they are more educated than you..
Which really gave me a chuckle.
Karl lets us know that:
It is all about the Money, so Lilly should consider that approximately 80% of the US population is Christian. Lilly is apparently in Satan's corner.
The Word of God is clear... that homosexuallity is a sin and Christians should not condone it.
Yes, Lilly is doing Satan's billing by opposing an unnecessary constitutional ammendment in order to attract and keep good employees.
To be fair, there are a lot of intelligent posters there who oppose the ban, but the actions of the legislature and the comments of these people who seem to be in the majority in this state really make me sad.
I was going to write about the "gay agenda" and "homosexual lifestyle," but this diary is probably too long already.
What I don't understand is the blindness of the supporters of the ammendment who are unable to recognize that not all people in the state are fundies or that state policy should not be determined by religion. Nor should the majority hold hostage the rights of minorities.