A move to amend Indiana's constitution to ban legal recognition of same-sex marriages and benefits incident to marriage will be decided by the Republican caucuses of the House and Senate according to House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President Pro Tempore David Long. Both leaders agree that the issue is not an important issue facing Hoosiers and neither plans to dictate the decision on the proposed amendment's fate to their caucus members. The comments were made at a luncheon hosted by the Indiana State Chamber of Commerce, which is remaining neutral on the issue, the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette reported. The House and Senate Democratic leaders, Rep. Scott Pelath and Sen. Tim Lanane, both expressed opposition to the amendment. Meanwhile, a group representing several hundred clergy members held a press conference yesterday at the State House to voice their opposition to the amendment. Indiana law already bans legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Indiana Republicans would be fools to allow this amendment to go to a vote before voters in 2014. If this amendment question is on the ballot next year, there will be an influx of a millions of dollars into the state to advocate for the rejection of this amendment, along with hundreds of grassroots organizers who will be working to bring out voters in an off-year election who are more likely to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. The decision is a no-brainer if you ask me.
14 comments:
I think you just defined the caucuses
Knock off the pejorative language. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Words have specific meanings. It's isn't "discrimination" to insist on proper meanings.
When I ask for a pair of pliers, I don't want two Ken dolls rubber-banded together in a kissing pose, because, well, don't both objects involve two pieces coming together for a common purpose?
When two homosexuals form a union, it isn't and cannot be "marriage."
Not terribly long ago, you never heard of anyone being homosexual, but now, it's cultural backwardness if we don't accept them as having the ability to marry each other? How did we become so aberrant, so quickly?
Just wait for the lawsuits. Once they get to stand in equal stature as properly married couples, we'll get to see, at penalty of civil rights suits, homosexual couples in media and textbook under a constitutional demand of "equality." Won't our maladjusted youth just be improved by this?
This homosexual "marriage" nonsense is a leading incident of America's decline and headlong rush to aberrance, unconventional social ordering, and depravity.
Our society, economy, legal system, education system, all of it, is deeply damaged if we are seeing so much homosexuality in our country. Homosexuality is a human's response to stress. How much stress is there in our country that we have to normalize the oddest of social arrangements just to ensure a portion of the population isn't lonely?
We need a return of standards.
anon 8:43 a.m., Considering that the Puritans who first came to this country believed that government should have no say in regulating marriages . . .
Once equality is experienced by all, I predict we will have a much stronger, healthier nation. Some people will no longer feel the need to hide who they are or feel like second class citizens. Some will no longer enter into "false" marriages as a smoke-screen. Rather they can commit and marry who they really want to be with.
To anon 8:43am, there are not more homosexuals, only real people now living openly who they are. You seem to be stuck in the 1950's delusions.
For the record, I'm straight. I want to see ALL treated equally with love and respect. It's what we all deserve!!
Interesting, Gary. What, precisely, were the Puritans' views on homosexual unions, and how many homosexual "marriages" did the Puritan churches consecrate? How frequently did the Puritan churches implore the Commonweal to abstain from passing legislation adverse to homosexual marriages?
The Puritans did, however, have a death penalty for homosexuals.
Is Anon 8:43 Ginny Cain?
Yes the Puritans were shining examples of America's first hypocrites. Puritans wanted religious freedom but then imposed their mean-spirited religious views and laws on others sometimes leading to deadly results. Perfect example why we should not allow the majority to trample on the rights of the minority.
This is becoming less and less a partisan issue. It shall be interesting to see if Bosma and Long get that. Tricks still may be played.
Too bad Liz Cheney put politics above family. Bet she ends up losing on all fronts.
Anon 8:43
there is nothing compelling or even clever about your comment. Please explain how, exactly "our society, economy, legal system, education system, all of it, is deeply damaged if we are seeing so much homosexuality in our country"
The areas of the country that have stood aside and allowed for equal marriage are doing very well economically. In fact it would increasingly appear that your assertion is backwards: that states that have no prosperity and ingenuity are the ones fighting the hardest against equal marriage. Additionally, look at Canada. They weathered the economic crisis far better than the states and are doing very well right now. And guess what? They have same-sex marriage. You need to learn how to live and let live, not to hate strangers at every opportunity.
Anonymous 10:31. You are not the first ignoramus that I've heard in the midwest talk reverently about executing homosexuals. When you speak like that, I wonder how well you understand the rights and privileges of being an American, and I wonder if you call yourself Christian. What would Christ say of that statement? When I read statements like yours I'm reminded exactly why I pulled my family and investments out of Indiana.
Ginny Cain would have all of the Gay population either exterminated or sent to the North Pole. The Religious right like her and Don Bates foster an incredible amount of hate in their hearts for anything that they don't approve of. Ginny Cain and Don Bates are pure evil.
1:23 quit saying "equal marriage."
There's marriage, then there's an entirely different category containing homosexual unions, pairings, partnerships, whatever. The latter category will never be "marriage."
All marriages are "equal," as all apples are equally apples. No orange, however, can possess enough apple-ness to be equal to an apple.
Homosexual unions are not and will never be marriages.
P.S., bye. While homosexual conduct should never be criminalized, I'd still prefer to live in a place that doesn't radically alter the social machinery to accommodate homosexuals. I hope you are happy in Philadelphia, New York or wherever you went, just as I'm happy that you didn't find Indiana fully hospitable to your tastes.
10:31, Ben Franklin believed that the purpose of the Puritan church was not to make a better world or even a better group of people, but instead Puritanism existed
merely to perpetuate itself.
The proponents of this amendment go further than deny same-sex couples the right to marry, which is already prohibited under Indiana law. They go further in prohibiting the legal recognition of any incidents of marriage, including domestic partner benefits which many Indiana employers currently offer their employees, or adoption rights that are extended to same-sex couples. This isn't just about barring same-sex marriages; it is based on singling out a class of citizens for a broader range of discrimination.
Your 4:55 comment raises a valid concern. While there's much benefit in protecting against the incursion of the homosexual agenda, Indiana wants to remain a very welcoming place for heterosexual couples, not all of whom are married.
Indeed, as family law courts have made formal marriage economic suicide for males, it is increasingly common for males to have a much stronger position as head of the household by rejecting marriage.
Male-headed heterosexual households are the best foundation yet discovered for a successful community and are relationships deserving of the greatest possible respect from all branches of government.
Post a Comment