Sunday, December 23, 2007

Daniels Thinks Discriminatory Marriage Amendment Is A Good Idea

While Indiana's leading employers pleaded with the legislature not to enact a discriminatory amendment to our state constitution this past legislative session, which is clearly unnecessary and goes beyond the proponents' purported aim of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples only, Gov. Mitch Daniels thinks it would be just fine if the legislature did it anyway. In an interview with the Star's Mary Beth Schneider on his re-election bid, Schneider asks Daniels, "Should the legislature vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in this session?" Here's his response:

It's up to them. As a believer in traditional marriage and a supporter of the law we have on the books now, I agree with the idea of protecting it against some creative judicial ruling in the future.

Now, Gov. Daniels' supporters will no doubt jump to his defense and split hairs in interpreting what he actually said. The fact is that he has publicly stated in the past he would support a constitutional amendment. Indiana's leading employers, including the company which made him a multi-millionaire, Eli Lilly, are convinced the proposed constitutional amendment is bad economically for Indiana, and that has not moved him to change his position. Instead, Daniels has chosen to pander to homo-bigoted religious extremists. That's his choice, but his ambivalence towards a fundamental issue of social justice can just as easily lead traditional Republicans like myself to cross over and vote for a Democratic candidate who takes social justice seriously. Former U.S. Rep. Jill Long Thompson, for example, has unequivocally said she opposes the amendment as unnecessary and supports civil unions for same-sex couples. Public opinion polls have also demonstrated the public's shifting opinion on this subject. It's too bad that Daniels, who likes to fashion himself as a forward-thinker, has chosen such a backward-thinking position on this issue.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

and Gay and gay friendly republicans want this man re-elected.......hhmmmmm

Anonymous said...

Gary,

I've never heard this idea brought up, but doesn't a gay marriage ban infringe on the religious rights of those churches and their followers that don't believe in discrimination? I suppose the argument is that they're still free to conduct marriage ceremonies, but the state does not have to recognize them.

The counter to that argument is that marriage is not defined in the Indiana code. There is no definition of a marriage under IC 31-9, and IC 31-11 only specifies who may marry, but not what a marriage is. IC 31-11-4-1 requires a marriage license before two individuals may marry (surprisingly, this section of code actually uses the phrase "two individuals"). Therefore adherents of religions that disavow discrimination are being denied the right to practice that tenet of their faith.

Anonymous said...

Mitch is right!

Anonymous said...

"homo-bigoted religious extremists"? I have several close friends who are gay. We work together, we go out together, we have even taken vacations together, they have been to my house and I to theirs. I am also an opponent of "gay marriage" I understand their positions, and in turn they understand mine. We have differences, but we agree not to agree. To label everyone who is opposed to gay marriage as a "homo-bigoted religious extremists" is a bit offensive. That is comperable to saying that if you are against affirmative action, you are a klan member. Your argument looses credability when you go over the top by so much.

lori said...

3:10, if you believe that your "good friends" should remain second class citizens and should not be able to protect their families, than yes....you are a homo-bigot.

Why do you believe that they should not have the same protections as you?

If you are against marriage for religious reasons, than you should understand that there is already a law in place that protects marriage. You however, want to make sure that your "friends" have no protections at all by amending the constitution.

With friends like that.......

Wilson46201 said...

Catholic churches are not required to marry Protestants. If you aren't a Mormon, forget about ever getting married in a Mormon Temple! Society freely allows churches to discriminate in whom they will marry. Why is the State of Indiana so intent on dictating who churches may not marry? Many religious entities are desirous to marry two people of the same sex but Mitch and his minions desire to thwart such religious practices.

Separate the church from the clutches of the state and also separate the state from the clutches of some churches!

Advance Indiana said...

anon. 2:45, This amendment isn't just a gay marriage ban. It deprives anyone, straight or gay, from obtaining any legal protection of their relationship if they are not married. It is not until relative recent history that government has got in the business of regulating what is and isn't a marriage. Religions should be free to declare what a marriage is in the practice of their respective faiths, but they should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of us what a marriage is.

Anonymous said...

Wilson: Get a life! -And a clue! The State does not dictate who churches marry.

The State recognizes the union of a man & woman.

We need a constitutional amendment to prevent a leftist judge from destroying that which The Almighty has joined.

Please stop your disinformation campaign. There are no churches that, as Wilson Allen says "are desirous to marry two people of the same sex."

What is "The Abominable Sin," Wilson?

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:51 get over it and admit that Wilson is correct. Some churches are quite willing to marry couples of the same sex.
Some wont even marry hetero couple of other religions or a mixed couple when one couple is a member of that church and one isn't. What straight people need to remember is that many straight couples have lived as husband and wife for years and raised a family but this amendment wont take away some of those rights also. I dont think that we want to open that door.........some churches still wont marry mixed race couples.....you and the government need to stay out of the bedrooms of private citizens...and treat everyone with equal rights.

Anonymous said...

Lori,
Did I say my friends should be second class citizens? Did I say i wanted to deprive them of the right to protect their families? Did I say i did not want them to have protections in place? As a matter of fact, did i even say that I supported a constitution ammendment? No. I said only that I was an opponent of "gay marriaqge". You, just like everyone else on your side of the fence, take the position that since I don't believe as you do, I am an evil nut. You put words in my mouth and then attack me for them. My friends understand my beliefs, listen to my reasons, and then made a decision that we are different in our views. You my dear, attack first, make assumptions, and resort to name calling. All of the things you call for could be accomplished without "marriage", yet you hold an all or nothing bent that will eventually be your downfall.

Wilson46201 said...

Interestingly, the State of Indiana does not require any couple to be married in a church with a religious ceremony. Bart Peterson has the authority to conduct a perfectly legal marriage ceremony. The Center Township Small Claims Court Judge performs marriages constantly in the basement of the City-County Building. The important document is the Marriage License issued by the County Clerk, Beth White. It becomes valid and operative only when signed by a person legally authorized to conduct marriages. There are a number of important legal advantages accruing to a couple upon marriage. None of these are conferred by The God Almighty but by the secular authorities and entities. Without a government-issued marriage license, the most elaborate marriage sacrament performed even by the Holy Father, the Pope himself, is null and void.

Let religious entities conduct marriage ceremonies for whom they wish (assuming the couple has a valid state-isued marriage license) but let's keep those religious entities from dictating to whom the State may issue marriage licenses!

Anonymous said...

Wilson Allen 4:56:

Put up or shut up! There are NO churches that "are quite willing to marry couples of the same sex." The bible has a term for it, The Abominable Sin.

Disinformation is your only hope, Wilson.

Anonymous said...

Another interesting point for Lori. I have several gay friends, and i am a supporter of gay rights, I am only against Gay marriage. By another name, i have no quarrels with gay couples having the same rights. Now however, you have called my a homo-bigoted religious extremists. My friends know me and can live with my views, by all or nothing activists want my head on a platter. In future debate, meetings, hearings, petition drives, fund raisers for your cause; how quick will I be to put myself out there on your behalf? Should I stand up for a group who calls me names and mocks what I believe in? Should I give time and money to those who shout me down for having beliefs of my own? Should I even care about your cause after you have chosen to banish me? I probably shouldn't, but I still will because they are my friends. How many others who believe as I do will turn their backs on you because of your name calling? The stance of "Your either with me or against me" may end badly. There are those who believe in equality for this group of citizens without supporting the wording. Do you really want to allienate them? I will continue to support my friends, but there are those out there who will eventually tire of your name calling and turn their back on you.

Wilson46201 said...

In Indianapolis, the Jesus Metropolitan Community Church is most desirous of marrying same-sex couples. All Unitarian churches have expressed a desire to do so. Others can name many, many more.

Wilson46201 said...

The recently retired Center Township Small Claims Court Judge Paula Lopossa stated she'd be glad to marry same-sex couples should the law allow it.

Anonymous said...

Wilson,

Many meetings of the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers) also desire to join anyone who so desires into the bounds of marriage.

Centrist said...

5:53 said, "By another name, i have no quarrels with gay couples having the same rights."

In case you missed the past 50 years, the rest of us discovered that separate is not equal. I bet you support separate water fountains too, don't you?

You argue so vehemently against being labled a bigot, yet there you go spewing statements that validate that very label. Real classy...

Anonymous said...

I am only against Gay marriage. By another name, i have no quarrels with gay couples having the same rights.

Why? You DO realize that legalizing gay marriage would not and could not force any church to perform or recognize something that is against its doctrine, right? There ARE churches that want to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

Anonymous said...

Are we still having this discussion? Leave the gays alone. No more govermnent intervention in our personal lives!

Wilson46201 said...

Marriage is precisely government intervention into private lives. The Federal government provides over 1000 "benefits" to married couples and thus denies those benefits to LGBT persons.

Couples always may "shack up" without benefit of clergy or state approval. Churches may do religious ceremonies or sacraments concerning marriage but without that state-issued marriage license, it's a private religious function.

The issuance by the state of the marriage license is central to officially registering the couple in the eyes of society and the law. All else is rock&roll and holy mumbojumbo.

Anonymous said...

The polls say Daniels is in trouble. He knows he can't win if he doesn't hold the right wing. It's simple.

Anonymous said...

Many branches of the Episcopal church wishes to conduct gay marriage ceremonies........there are many others....

Anonymous said...

"ADAM and EVE" NOT "ADAM AND STEVE"

Wilson46201 said...

Why not also use "GOD HATES FAGS"? If you're going to be a bigot, be a total bigot!

Anonymous said...

Where does God talk about Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve? I think that is a slogan made up by bigoted haters to spew since they do not have any facts on their side.......

DITCH MITCH!!!!

lori said...

5:53pm, if you are against amending the constitution, you have my apologies. Are you?

You said: "In future debate, meetings, hearings, petition drives, fund raisers for your cause; how quick will I be to put myself out there on your behalf?"

Have you been to fundraisers, signed petitions and attended hearings on your friends behalf? If so, again I will extend my apologies.

You said: "Your either with me or against me" may end badly. There are those who believe in equality for this group of citizens without supporting the wording. Do you really want to allienate them? I will continue to support my friends, but there are those out there who will eventually tire of your name calling and turn their back on you."

So, are you for or against the marriage amendment?

Please clarify before I begin these apologies.

Anonymous said...

While adding a constitutional amendment, let's eliminate the unnecessary layers of government and unneeded elected officials. Appoint Sheriffs, and coroners based upon qualifications and skill. Abolish townships.

Peter said...

"ADAM and EVE" NOT "ADAM AND STEVE"

Adam and Eve were married?

Wilson46201 said...

Fornication!!!

Anonymous said...

Joseph and Mary were not married either.......they would have been declared second class citizens if the Mitch Daniels's anti marriage amendment is passed.