Eli Lilly Takes Sides in Culture War: Opposes Indy Marriage Amendment

Eli Lilly becomes the latest major corporation to sell out to the homosexual lobby — by selling out the institution of marriage. So protecting marriage as one-man, one-woman now makes a state “intolerant”? How sad. There was a time when corporations wanted to create a wholesome family environment, and sought to recruit family men. Now they subsidize perversion and are petrified of alienating vocal homosexual activists. The descent of the corporation into the outright promotion of evil (an organized sin movement) is one of the saddest stories of modern, “post-Christian” America. But there is still time for moral-minded employees at Eli Lilly to speak up and reverse this travesty. — Peter LaBarbera

The following article appeared on the front page of Wednesday’s Indianapolis Star

By Mary Beth Schneider (mary.beth.schneider@indystar.com)

Lilly Against Marriage Ban

Eli Lilly and Co. today became the latest large Indiana employer to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. 

Tony Murphy, Lilly’s senior vice president for human resources, sent a letter to House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, and other legislators saying the amendment could hinder Lilly’s ability to attract employees and also paint an image of Indiana as an intolerant state.    

Murphy said in the letter that Lilly, which employs nearly 16,000 people in Indiana, has offered domestic partner benefits since January 2004. He said the company is concerned that the language of the amendment could put those benefits at risk.

In addition to defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, the amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 7, states that the 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.”

“As a result of this uncertainty (over what the amendment’s impact might be,)” Murphy wrote, “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.”

In addition, Murphy wrote, Lilly is concerned the amendment “sends an unwelcoming signal to current and future employees making Indiana appear intolerant.”

During a hearing last week in the House on the proposed amendment, spokesmen for Cummins Inc. and WellPoint both testified that the amendment could hurt their efforts to recruit employees and could also jeopardize domestic-partner benefits. A third firm, Dow AgroSciences, sent a letter voicing similar concerns.

The proposed amendment passed the Indiana General Assembly in 2005, but must pass a second time before going to voters for their approval. The Senate approved the amendment earlier this year, and now it is awaiting action in the House.  

It is highly unusual for Lilly to weigh in on an issue with such large political and social overtones. And the fact that Lilly doesn’t usually speak out gives its comments this time even greater weight in the Statehouse.

This article was posted on Thursday, March 29th, 2007 at 12:25 am and is filed under Eli Lilly, News. You can follow any updates to this article through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Support Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Americans For Truth
P.O. Box 340743
Columbus, OH 43234

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Americans for Truth Radio Hour

Americans for Truth Academy

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'