Veritas Rex

Huge Pastors Event in Indy Feb. 23rd!

YouTube - Indiana Regional Pastors Briefing
 

If you are a pastor or are a member of a church, please view this video invitation to the Watchmen on the Wall event coming to downtown Indianapolis on Feb. 23rd.  Indiana Family Institute, Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund are cohosting this event as a service to Hoosier pastors and churches. 

At this special briefing exclusively for pastors, pastors will:

• Learn about the Indiana Pastor's Alliance, a ministry of the Indiana Family Institute, headed by Dr. Ron Johnson Jr., aimed at unifying pastors to speak the truth of Christ in love to our culture here in Indiana.
• Learn from experts on the current legal and spiritual challenges facing the church
• Connect with other pastors and ministers in Indiana
• Receive a free Voter Impact Toolkit
• Enjoy a complimentary lunch

Pastors will leave encouraged, refreshed, and empowered to address the critical issues you and your church face in the important days ahead.

Date: Tuesday, February 23

Time: 9:00 AM - 2:30 PM

Location: Hyatt Regency Indianapolis*, 1 South Capitol Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204

Featured Speakers:

• Tony Perkins - President, Family Research Council
• Dr. Laurence White - Our Savior Lutheran Church, Houston, TX
• Dr. Kenyn Cureton - Vice President for Church Ministries, FRC
• Kevin Theriot - Senior Counsel, ADF
• Joel Oster - Senior Legal Counsel, ADF
• Curt Smith - President, Indiana Family Institute
• Dr. Ron Johnson Jr. - Indiana Pastor's Alliance

This event is free of charge.

Please Register now...space is limited!

Stampede at the Animal Farm

***editor’s note: the following is a parody, which, praise the Lord, at the time of printing, still falls within the constitutional framework of protected speech. ***

To Veritas Rex Readers: Mitch Stewart directs Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee, in Washington, D.C., and last week he sent me a draft of an email that he later blasted out to Obama supporters Friday morning. Mitch and I are committed to reaching across the aisle to forge new bridges than span the past decades of distrust, and he occasionally asks for my input on his communiques. Sometimes he even uses my suggestions; the following represents last week's back-and-forth, and I thought it would be helpful to share; hopefully this may inspire others. --CM

Rep. Vanessa Summers sees the light?

Today’s Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports that Advance America’s Eric Miller opposition to a bill that would license church child-care ministries has hit a nerve with the author, Democratic Rep. Vanessa Summers of Indianapolis. According to the JG article, “the bill would limit the number of children watched by a caregiver.” Advance America’s opposition was so appealing that it persuaded Rep. Summer’s own church pastors to oppose the measure.

Church license bill pulled over dispute

http://tiny.cc/B8mas

An Indiana House committee chairwoman has set aside a bill that would license church child-care ministries because she says she wants to give the two sides battling over it time to cool off.

Democratic Rep. Vanessa Summers of Indianapolis unexpectedly postponed a hearing on the bill Wednesday. She says she has become the target of a smear campaign by opponents who rallied even her own pastors against her.

Summers rescheduled the hearing for Jan. 27 but later said she wasn’t sure the bill would go forward this year.

The bill endorsed by a bipartisan summer study committee would limit the number of children watched by a caregiver.

Eric Miller, of the conservative lobbying group Advance America, said government has no business regulating churches and denied any smear campaign against Summers.

Christopher Mann is a public relations consultant in Fort Wayne. Email Chris at chris@christophermann.com or Tweet him at @MannCub.

The Manhattan Declaration

I just signed on to the Manhattan Declaration.  It is quite good.  Congratulations to Chuck Colson, Professor Robert George (Princeton), Professor Timothy George (Samford) and all the others who helped produce it. 

I found the marriage section to be as accurate an explanation of the Christian position in favor of traditional marriage as there is available.  Check it out:

"Marriage

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33

In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself.    Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country.    Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out- of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

Senators Lugar and Bayh Disappoint Hoosiers

Yesterday Senator Richard Lugar made remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate in support of judicial activist David Hamilton.  Senator Lugar has repeatedly supported Judge Hamilton and continues to do so despite efforts by his colleagues in the Senate to filibuster his confirmation. 

One would unfortunately expect the support of a liberal judicial activist from Sen. Bayh (who voted against the confirmation of Hoosier native John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court), but Sen. Lugar's continued shift to the left is disturbing and disappointing to Hoosier families. 

Sen. Lugar's comments attempt to explain away Judge Hamilton's history of judicial activism.  Of particular interest to me was this excerpt:

"Another charge levied is that Judge Hamilton prohibited public prayers involving Jesus Christ but allowed prayers invoking Allah. However, Judge Hamilton did not say, as some suggest, that prayers in the Indiana Legislature to 'Allah' as the Muslim deity were permissible while prayers to Jesus Christ were not. He in fact said that using Allah as a generic reference to the deity could theoretically be permissible in non-sectarian prayer, as would be true of using the word for God in any language. Judge Hamilton was clear that legislative prayer advancing the religion of Islam would be prohibited. I support a more permissive approach to public prayer than Judge Hamilton, but clearly his ruling comports with Supreme Court authority. As Justice Antonin Scalia explained, government-sponsored endorsements of religion are sectarian if they “specify details upon which men and women who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator and Ruler of the world are known to differ (for example the divinity of Jesus Christ)."

However, IFI's Amicus Brief filed in this case paints a much different picture.  As does a report IFI put together during the height of this controversy.  Judge Hamilton did not single out Allah.  He only singled out Jesus Christ.  Here is Judge Hamilton's conclusion:

"If the Speaker (IN House Speaker Brian Bosma) chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer...that they should refrain from using Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal." (emphasis mine)

At the end of the day, if Judge Hamilton's ruling had been upheld (which it was not), it would have permanently banned the practice of praying in Jesus name to open daily sessions of the Indiana General Assembly. 

Sen. Lugar should be able to look past personal relationships and geography (In his comments Sen. Lugar said, "I have known David since his childhood. His father, Reverend Richard Hamilton, was our family’s pastor at St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Indianapolis...."  A church known for their current pastor's support of public policy that promotes homosexuality I might add.) and oppose Judge Hamilton's nomination on principle. 

Whether we like it or not (I hate it), the judiciary has become a place where policy is made (Roe v. Wade for example).  That concept is completely foreign to the framework the Founding Fathers set in place, but it is happening in courts all across the country.  That makes it even more important for Conservatives to stand up and oppose judicial activists like Judge Hamilton.  With his support for Judge Hamilton and vote in favor of hate crimes legislation (among many troubling votes in recent years), many Conservatives are wondering if Sen. Lugar and "conservative" should even be used in the same sentence. 

 

Senator Lugar's contact information is:

306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1401
(202) 224-4814 p
(202) 228-0360 f

Hate what God hates, Love what God loves

It Begins: Leftist Groups Lobby FCC to Investigate "Hate Speech"

For years conservatives have been warning that if federal hate crimes legislation would become law, non-politically correct free speech would soon be labeled "hate speech" and silenced, as has been the case in other parts of the world.

Matt Barber believes this effort has already begun.  Check out his press release below:

 

DATE: November 3, 2009                         FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

It’s Begun: Liberals Invoke Specter of “Hate Crimes” to Eradicate “Hate Speech”

 

Cleveland, OH – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action issued the following statement on News that the left-wing United Church of Christ (UCC) and other quasi-Christian liberal groups are calling for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to officially investigate talk radio and other conservative media outlets in an effort to “put an end” to “hate speech” and so-called “media violence:”

“One man’s principled conviction is another man’s ‘hate speech,’” said Barber. “For this reason – to protect the free exchange of ideas – our Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment. The election of President Obama and the recent passage of so-called ‘hate crimes’ legislation has galvanized the radical homosexual lobby, the pro-amnesty crowd, the quasi-Christian left and other fringe factions. Now, more than ever, they are emboldened to silence all dissent.

“We knew it was merely a matter of time until liberals – to include the Obama administration – would begin using the euphemistic terms ‘hate crimes’ and ‘hate speech’ interchangeably. None of us thought it would happen this fast. Those of us who opposed the new ‘hate crimes’ law have charged for years that the bill’s true objective was to silence any opposition to liberal views, including principled opposition to the homosexual lifestyle and illegal immigration. Before the ink on Obama’s ‘hate crimes’ signature is even dry, we have our smoking gun. The verdict? Guilty as charged.    

“Unfortunately, the UCC’s leadership is cut from the same counter-biblical, anti-American cloth as President Obama’s racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. The religious-left movement fervently pushes the doctrines of postmodern secularism – all dolled-up and tagged ‘Christian.’ They want to have their religion cake and eat it too. In order to achieve their extreme left-wing goals, they are willing to stand by – strike that – they are willing to advocate the trampling of our beloved First Amendment under jackbooted government heel.

“But I’m encouraged. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of their like-minded cohorts continue to over play their hand. Despite open attempts to “remake” America, we are not an Eastern Bloc country. We’ve defeated the cancer of Marxism before and we’ll do it again. As I believe today’s election will prove; the tide is turning. Liberty will prevail.” 

 

###

 

Elections Have Consequences: President Obama and Congress Make "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" Federally Protected Classes

As was predicted before the election, Congressional Democratic Leadership and President Obama have added "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to a list of federally protected groups that will be given great protection than the average crime victim.  Hate crimes legislation was snuck into a "must pass" defense appropriations bill and signed by the President on Wednesday.

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert gives an insightful look into the details of this unnecessary, unjust piece of legislation that is now the law of the land.  I say it is unnecessary because of the nearly one million assaults in the U.S. in 2007...only 242 were committed because the victim was a part of a protected group: sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, race, religion, etc.  In addition, 45 of the 50 states already have hate crimes laws on the books, which are almost never needed (which Rep. Gohmert explains below). Of particular interest to me is his explanation that under this new federal law, if a male exhibitionist would flash a woman on the street, and that woman would hit the exhibitionist with her purse, the exhibitionist would have committed a misdemeanor and the woman would have committed a new FEDERAL FELONY under the hate crimes law. 

As Rep. Gohmert mentions above, the fear is that if a pastor preaches a sermon on sexual ethics and some nut happens to be in the church that day and proceeds to commit a crime against a self-identified gay or lesbian person, a court would then have to charge the pastor as a principle in that crime.

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions helped put this wrongheaded law into perspective when arguing against it on the Senate floor.  He mentions that many self-identified gay and lesbians don't think this new law will really do anything to prevent crime...even though preventing crime was the primary reason supporters gave in favor of the bill while it was before Congress.  Self-identified gay activist, Andrew Sullivan, who helped pioneer the idea of including self-identified gays in the military, had this to say about hate crime legislation:

"The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that - and Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time. The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings.

Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for HRC [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It's very, very powerful as a money-making tool - which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn't passed (if it passes, however, I'll keep a close eye on whether it is ever used)." 

Adding "sexual orientation" and "sexual orientation" as a federally protected class within criminal statutes is not about protecting people from crime.  It is merely one step in the ladder that some self-identified GLBT activists hope ends with the silencing of the Church, though they usually won't admit to that publicly of course.  While the Church still proclaims the full gospel, including portions that address sexual ethics, they feel that they can never achieve the utopia they strive for:  an America where everyone is forced to be supportive of ANY sexual act and/or relationship, regardless of what the cost to families and children might be.

IFI's national partner, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, explains this well in this video:

The latest on Federal Hate Crimes/Thought Crimes/ Pedophile Protection Act

Here's a brief recap of the Federal "Hate Crimes" bill (Check out my previous post for a reminder of the dangers of "hate crime" legislation).

1. In April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009," otherwise known as the Hate Crimes Bill, Thought Crimes Bill, or the Pedophile Protection Act (coined by U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa after uncovering that the bill could protect pedophiles as a specially protected class, but not military veterans). Only 3 Indiana Congressmen supported the House bill.
   
   
2. Despite being given a liberal super-majority in Congress and a liberal in the White House after the 2008 election, self-identified GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered) activists were unable to get enough support to pass the Pedophile Protection Act through the U.S. Senate.  So, Senate liberals amended the Pedophile Protection Act into a bill that would provide funding for the U.S. military. 
   
   
3. The U.S. Senate passed it by a vote of 68-29 attached to this "must pass" $680 billion defense appropriations plan.  Indiana Senator's Lugar and Bayh parted company with their conserservative colleagues to support these special protections for any and every "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," but not for veterans or pastors. 

Now the Pedophile Protection Act will go to President Obama, giving him the option of signing it into law, vetoing it or doing nothing and allowing it to become law without his signature.  It is widely believed that he will sign it given the strong relationship he has with radical leftist "GLBT" groups. 

Some are calling on President Obama to veto the bill based on his promise to veto wasteful spending.  The bill has 787 earmarks.  The wasteful spending and "sexual orientation and gender identity" protection language, that are unrelated to supporting our troops, could be stripped by Congress and the true defense appropriations bill could be sent back to the President.   

Victory in Goshen

Religious liberty, public safety, limited government, common sense and love for one's neighbor won out at the Goshen City Council meeting Tuesday evening/Wednesday morning.  Though I have had little experience with the City of Goshen and it's residents in the past, I am now a big fan of this Hoosier city with the small town feel.  Thanks to the opposition of Goshen residents and the work of many pro-family organizations and elected officials, ordinance 4551 was defeated by a 4-3 vote.

ADF Chief Legal Counsel Glen Lavy, IFI President Curt Smith and State Representative Wes Culver at Goshen High School after successfully defending families in Goshen.

Goshen residents were remarkably well researched, logical and respectful.  As someone who deals with these sorts of issues every day, I was surprised by how many good points I was introduced to that I had not thought of prior to the meeting.  Of course, there were a few disrespectful and unhelpful testifiers on both sides, but unfortunately that is a given at these sort of meetings.  

Though Indiana Equality and other local and state self-identified GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgender) organizations spent months prior to the meeting attempting to whip up support for ordinance 4551 and opponents only had a couple of weeks to cut through the propaganda and get Goshen residents the truth, by my count there was more testimony in opposition to the ordinance than for it.  What's more, proponents of the ordinance even admitted that it was unenforceable and could be very costly for the city and it's residents by exposing it and them to frivolous lawsuits.    

IFI President Curt Smith testified in opposition to the ordinance and mentioned that the concepts being debated (adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" into local law) are vague, imprecise ideas.  They are not fixed legal concepts, like race or gender, that can be carefully evaluated.  Nor were these terms even defined within the proposed ordinance.

Smith advised the Goshen City Council that "This ordinance is bad law, and I urge you to vote it down."  He also thanked the Alliance Defense Fund's Chief Legal Counsel, Glen Lavy, for coming all the way from Arizona to speak to some of the legal problems this type of ordinance presents.

The real hero of the evening/morning (the vote did not come until around 1:30 a.m.) was Councilman Chic Lantz.  A World War II veteran and a very fair and thoughtful man, Councilman Lantz changed his mind and voted against the ordinance after learning of problems that these sorts of ordinances have brought in other parts of the country. 

 
Goshen City Councilman Chic Lantz

The problems with the ordinance were numerous as was seen by the wide ranging testimony against it (over 150 people testified in total and some estimated that there were as many as 700 in attendance).  Self-identified GLBT ordinances like this one infringe upon the religious liberty and the personal and professional freedoms of citizens.  This ordinance, and others like it, do not take into account Christian businesses that attempt to apply their faith in the workplace. 

For example, if this ordinance would have passed, citizens of Goshen who might have wanted to form a counseling center to help those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction gain freedom from their unwanted desires would not have been able to refuse to hire someone who self-identifies as homosexual, practices that lifestyle and urges others to openly do so as well!  Hiring someone who embraces same-sex attraction to teach people how to escape same-sex attraction defeats the purpose, does it not?  

Public Safety is also a concern with these type of ordinances because they open the door of the women's restroom to men who claim to be women, dress as women and demand to use the women's restroom.  This opens up government and private business to either sexual harassment lawsuits (if they allow cross-dressing men to use women's restrooms against the wishes of women) or discrimination lawsuits (if they refuse to allow cross-dressing men to use the women's restroom, for example). 

This is also an issue of common sense, common decency and the real meaning of loving one's neighbor.  I was struck most by the testimony of those Goshen residents who had escaped the self-identified GLBT lifestyle and those who gave their stories and the stories of their family members who were sexually assaulted as children by homosexual adults.   Two different women shared their personal stories of victory over their unwanted same-sex attraction.  One woman and her husband both escaped the homosexual lifestyle and begged the Council to oppose the ordinance because it would send a message to those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction that their personal quest for change is meaningless and will help trap them in the lifestyle they wish to leave. 

Stories of homosexual family members who have died young because of AIDS were heart wrenching and reminded me of one of the main reasons why I will always fight the self-identified GLBT agenda.  Man is made in the image of God and as Christians we are called to love our neighbor as our self.  Proponents of the ordinance attempted to use that thought to push their cause.  However, true love is not doing what is popular (and the GLBT lifestyle certainly is today more than ever in America), it's the affectionate concern for the well-being of others. 

I could tell that many Goshen residents opposed to the ordinance were uncomfortable.  They are good people who love their neighbors and don't enjoy conflict.  However, for many of them, loving their neighbor overcame their uncomfort with the topic and won the day.  Their love for their fellow man would not allow them to support a public policy that promotes a lifestyle where the average lifespan of a homosexual man is 47 and where AIDS and other health factors are widespread (60% of AIDS cases in this state are men who have sex with men).         

At the end of day this was a victory for many things: religious liberty, public safety, limited government, common sense, etc.  However, the biggest winners were the people of Goshen themselves who came out to love their neighbors as their self, even when it was controversial and uncomfortable.  It shows that places like Goshen really don't need these sorts of "anti-discrimination" policies.  Whether testifying for or against the ordinance, Goshen residents said time and time againt that Goshen is a very welcoming and friendly city.  These courageous opponents motivated by love for their neighbor proved that as they received the vote they were hoping for in the wee hours of a Wednesday morning in a cramped high school auditorium.

I would be remiss if I didn't thank all the great work by pro-family leaders like Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana, Patrick Mangan of Citizens for Community Values, Eric Miller of Advance America and pro-family elected officials like State Representatives Wes Culver and Jackie Walorski and State Senator Carlin Yoder who showed up to support the people of Goshen and even more folks who helped get information about the ordinance out prior to the vote.  Christian radio station WFRN should also receive our thanks and support for their coverage. 

As great as it is to see success in Goshen for Hoosier families, we must stay vigilant as this same ordinance will continue to be shopped around the state thanks to Indiana Equality's Human Rights Ordinance Project, "supported by the Tides Foundation’s State Equality Fund, a philanthropic partnership that includes the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, the Gill Foundation, and anonymous donors."

That's right, the same Tim Gill that has pumped millions into state legislative races across the country to elect legislators who will promote self-identified GLBT activism.

Victory for families in Goshen is but one success in a long war that self-identified GLBT activists are waging statewide.   We must be prepared when they come to your part of the state.  Would you please consider supporting the work of the Indiana Family Institute to continue successfully and lovingly articulating and defending family values statewide?  Though 6 Indiana cities (Indianapolis, Bloomington, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, West Lafayette and Michigan City) have adopted this sort of ordinance, Goshen proves that this sort of expansion of government can be defeated.  

You can support us by going to our website and making an online donation today.