City Council Takes Stand Against Marriage Amendments

Today, the Evansville City Council, as whole, filed a Resolution opposing House Joint Resolution No. 6 (“HJR 6”), which is the proposed State Constitutional Amendment that would narrowly define marriage as only between a man and woman.  HJR 6 would also prohibit the Courts of Indiana from recognizing the same-sex marriages of Hoosiers that occur outside Indiana.

As the Resolution states, City Council strongly believes that discrimination in any form adversely impacts Hoosier families and the ability of industry to attract the best employees.  And as it is the intent and obligation of City Council to promote economic develop in Evansville, City Council opposes HJR 6 and the negative impact that it will have on Industry’s desire to do business in Indiana.

“I am proud to co-sponsor this Resolution.  The State Legislature should spend less time worrying about how people formalize their personal relationships and a lot more time on economic development.  HJR 6 flies in the face of job creation and fails to reflect the values of a majority of Hoosiers,” said Councilwoman Brinkerhoff Riley.

Brinkerhoff Riley went on to say, “leaving legally married Hoosiers in a limbo of permanent marriage is not good public policy.  Same-sex couples divorce at the same rate as heterosexual couples.  For Hoosiers that desire a divorce, there is no mechanism in Indiana to divide property or end the marriage.  The State Legislature should be expanding access to Indiana statutes, not burying their heads in the sand, and pretending like the problem doesn’t exist.  Hoosiers can now go to Illinois and get married.  It won’t be long until Indiana has thousands of married Hoosiers that need a mechanism for divorce.”

The Resolution will be heard by City Council next Monday, December 9, 2013, beginning at 5:30 p.m. in Room 301 of the Civic Center.

 

36 Responses to City Council Takes Stand Against Marriage Amendments

  1. Martha Crosley Reply

    December 4, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    WAY TO GO STEPHANIE AND OUR CITY COUNCIL !!!!!!!! FINALLY SOME COMMON SENSE. THANK YOU !!

    • KnowNothing Reply

      December 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm

      +1

  2. Pressanykey Reply

    December 4, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    The City Council members, who are elected to represent the citizens of their respective districts or in the case of the two At-Large council members all of the citizens of Evansville, are overstepping their authority here if they represent that they are speaking for anyone other than themselves.

    Councilwoman Brinkerhoff-Riley uses the words “…..NARROWLY defines marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman”. Polls have shown that a majority of Hoosiers also define marriage as only between a man and a woman and common sense dictates that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

    • Pressanykey Reply

      December 4, 2013 at 6:14 pm

      • The Ghost of Tom Joad Reply

        December 4, 2013 at 6:52 pm

        A source like that ought to be laughed off of this web site. Are you being serious?

        • Indianaenoch Reply

          December 4, 2013 at 8:10 pm

          I’m sorry, but what is wrong with the source? Are there factual errors? Has the landscape of this issue vastly changed?

          • The Ghost of Tom Joad

            December 4, 2013 at 8:19 pm

            It’s like citing alex jones but worse. Get real, pal.

      • KnowNothing Reply

        December 5, 2013 at 10:44 am

        The Baptist Press?? Get out of town.

    • Martha Crosley Reply

      December 4, 2013 at 7:06 pm

      Press,
      Sorry, we disagree here. I am one of the people that city council members represent just like you are. And I do not believe that you can say what the majority of people in the city of Evansville believe on this issue. (Don’t you live in the county?) If there is a great disagreement between each citizen and her/his representative, then it is that citizen’s right and obligation to contact that representative and voice an opposing view. I also think the piece from a Baptist newspaper from 2012 is hardly good evidence for your argument. This is not about religion. It is about civil rights. It is about living in society today. And yes it is about common sense.

      • The Ghost of Tom Joad Reply

        December 4, 2013 at 7:12 pm

        You’re absolutely right. I’d hope this person believes we should legalize MJ because a majority of Americans now believe so. After citing a Baptist web site, somehow I doubt that’s the case. For the record, I in no way advocate forcing a church to marry gays.

        • Martha Crosley Reply

          December 4, 2013 at 7:30 pm

          As I stated, this is not about religion.

          • V- is-to-R

            December 5, 2013 at 12:59 am

            Well your right about some of that,It ain’t about religion,basically again its about that region.
            If in fact the focus of any of the resolutions if seen from the outside looking in just again show a regional foot shooting upon the draw.
            How is a “spotlight” on such a politically volatile issue going to attract emerging innovative investment in a community that seems to continue to hover over some other regional governing bodies already heated debates. (crumby sign,looks cheap)
            Issues that focus on the mostly solved issues nationally have already been weathered and the hits sustained and moved forward by the areas that do spend the said economic growth focus in the touch points that really count in a persons daily working applications to gain some financial altitude. (signs)

            The real skinny known by the rest of the operating revenue forward planet when it comes to spousal rights is the joint benefit asset complications set by rule of law.
            Who pays who’s insurance and who might be in eligibility for what. Throwing in some resemblance of an “Faustian bargain” into the mix as a community input only adds magnification to ones perceived imagining evaluation. Let the judicial take the heat,that’s what they are paid for.

            Work on attraction with real issues,look closely at the up coming environmental costing improvements SABIC is planning to improve its production facility with, and remain globally viable for carbon sequestration with that operation in Southwestern Indiana.
            (Sign),reactivitiy to available jobs income revenues of a regions career projections forward.
            The speculation in the outside global market is that SABIC could also support differing thermal gas pipe line supplies for on site cooperative power plant operations.

            Sign…Vectren energy and its impact on the regional economy and commerce growth application,per methodology and function forward.

            Whos? the facial from Vectren with governmental regulatory issues per this region?…(SIGN!) Now, maybe try some focus on things that do apply to the future of “viable advanced career opportunities” in your regional applications as one would perceive it might move forward with something?

            My thoughts about the local marriage/partner debates.

            Grandpa the Indiana farmer, had a story about a family whom always seemed to be putting on the “ritz” at a local country church.
            That whole family always was front row center any time the preacher was going to preach about community issues,they also “out dressed” and “out talked” everyone else while heading in the door backwards, and watching the people behind them.
            Loud! As they always were, and the focus being only on themselves,they forgot about the churches ole steeple pigeon’s, at that point in time, that family now had something else on their fine clothing to show the rest of the slower, however easier going congregation behind them…AS WELL AS, the PREACHER ,because being respectful,the congregation gave the certain family their normal expected seating arrangement “front row, and center of attention.”

        • Indianaenoch Reply

          December 4, 2013 at 8:19 pm

          “After citing a Baptist web site” Ahh, there’s the issue.

          I take you at your word that you believe churches should not be forced to perform homosexual unions, but that is not what is happening. just like homosexual activist have challenged the laws of states through planned activism, they have also challenged businesses and church organizations.
          http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/
          (Sorry that it is a Christian link)
          http://bossip.com/721486/thats-not-sweet-oregon-bakery-refuses-order-for-gay-wedding-cake/

          And if not allowing homosexual marriage is discrimination as some are claiming, then will you write into law that it is legal for businesses and churches to discriminate?

          • The Ghost of Tom Joad

            December 4, 2013 at 9:16 pm

            It is a slippery slope. You are correct. We’re in agreement that government shouldn’t licence marriages altogether. The wedding cake thing is akin to businesses not allowing blacks or hispanics in and so forth. It’s a complex problem which I don’t claim to have the answer to. For the record, Rand Paul has said publicly he would repeal the civil rights act of 1964. When voting, thing about whether or not you want to be associated with a piece of trash like that.

          • The Ghost of Tom Joad

            December 4, 2013 at 9:18 pm

            License* think* cell phone

      • Indianaenoch Reply

        December 4, 2013 at 7:58 pm

        Do you represent the majority? The best way to measure the will of the people is by referendum. It seems that some fear the outcome of this amendment.

        Twenty nine states have a constitutional definition of marriage. Indiana is only one of five that has not legalized same sex marriage nor constitutionally defined marriage.

        One of the reasons Stephanie gives as a reason to not proceed with this amendment, same sex couples divorcing, is the very reason we need it. It is by design not accident that these couples file for divorce in states that do not recognize homosexual marriage. Doing so is a way of subverting a state’s marriage laws.

        The city council’s resolution subverts and takes away our rights to a vote. In no way is this action proper. If legal, it is in the least SNEGAL.

        • Bazinga Reply

          December 6, 2013 at 9:58 am

          You make it sound like everyone wants it. Well time and time again, California has passed (by vote of the people) a law stating marriage is one man and one woman. Guess what! Thrown out by a couple of black robes. So why even ask. It is a complete waste of time.

      • Pressanykey Reply

        December 5, 2013 at 9:32 am

        Exactly Martha. You are one and I am one and we respectfully disagree on this issue. No amount of persuasion, or worse, by the PC crowd is going to change my mind on this issue, and I do believe that public officials should be quick to state that they are speaking for themselves only on these issues and not to in any way represent that a publicly elected deliberative body has put their official stamp of approval on such issues. It is for the citizens of Indiana to decide.

        __

        • Martha Crosley Reply

          December 5, 2013 at 4:10 pm

          Why is this issue more than other issues taken up by the legislative body of the state for the “citizens of Indiana to decide”? Isn’t it the job of each legislator to listen to her/his constituents and factor in what they express? We’d be at the voting booth daily if everyone had to vote on all issues.

          Every time gay marriage comes up on this blog the same people argue the same points, so yes Press you are correct. Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind. Lets just wish everyone a happy holiday season no matter what their personal beliefs. I lost a family member last night. Old and feisty, she had a good life. The world moves on and changes as it goes. I believe that gay marriage is one change that is going to come. I know you do not. Why not wait and see.

      • Pressanykey Reply

        December 5, 2013 at 9:44 am

        One further thing Martha. If you do not think the information contained in “the Baptist newspaper” is hardly good evidence for my argument, may I be allowed to offer another source: Genesis 2: 22-24.

        ___

    • Indianaenoch Reply

      December 4, 2013 at 8:33 pm

      Even if we “broaden” the definition of marriage, some will not be included in it ans will claim discrimination. So my question is what is so unique about gay relationships that they should qualify for licensing? I am for anyone to be able to build a live together with whomever or how many the person desires, but does the state need to license these relationships? If there are laws the penalize them, then change the laws. There are also laws that penalize heterosexual marriage.

      My problem with this issue is that I see normally thoughtful people who are not putting thought into this issue.

  3. Indianaenoch Reply

    December 4, 2013 at 7:40 pm

    How does this issue in anyway fall into the scope of the duties of the city council? It appears to me that they are committing the very offense which the resolution speaks against. Does the council not have more pressing business then using its authority as a bully pulpit?

    • Martha Crosley Reply

      December 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm

      I believe that since this is a resolution, not a legal document it simply is meant to convey what they hope Evansville stands for and should stand for. That could be equality in jobs, parenting or whatever. It does seem to me to stress educating the House as to what a tangled legal web could be ahead with same-sex marriages from other states moving to Indiana. It also does fall under the city council’s territory when improving economic growth by fostering equality.

      • Indianaenoch Reply

        December 4, 2013 at 8:07 pm

        If the resolution has no weight, then it is a double waste of the council’s time. This issue is not about equality. LGTGs have the same rights as anyone. Two people pf the same sex do not qualify for marriage any more than minors, close relatives, or more than two qualify for marriage.

        I think there are far more important ways to promote economic growth than this resolution.

        • Phyllip Davis Reply

          December 5, 2013 at 10:50 am

          “I can not control how many people my heart loves. It is not a choice that I love five women. All five of my girlfriends and I consent to our relationship. They love me and I love them. We’re all consenting adults and we should be allowed to be married at the same time. Anyone that disagrees with anything that I just said is a hateful bigoted barbarian. If they were forward thinking like I am they would agree with me and not want to take us back into the stone age. Everyone should have the government-sanctioned right to do whatever makes them happy. Why does anyone else care that my bed sleeps six?” As far-fetched as that sounds, how is it different from the other arguments that I hear. It’s only a matter of time before polygamy becomes more acceptable in society.

  4. Indianaenoch Reply

    December 4, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    I really don’t care what two consenting adults do either, but I don’t feel what they consent to do requires the state to license it.

  5. Metered Maid Reply

    December 4, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    Like Nero, while Rome was burning, Nero was fiddling…we have sewer issues, infrastructure issues, etc. and, you break out the fiddle?? Witnettery???

    • Pressanykey Reply

      December 5, 2013 at 10:15 am

      Not to fret over your sewer issues, Jonathan Weinzapfel, Mike Duckworth, and Jenny Collins have the issue well in hand.

      __

    • Pressanykey Reply

      December 5, 2013 at 10:34 am

      V- is-to-R says:
      December 5, 2013 at 12:59 am

      Your “economic” argument falls apart when one looks at the history of California. One could hardly find a more liberal state, and yet they are hopelessly bankrupted financially ($130.Billion as of June 30, 2013). It is just a matter of time before the rest of the country will be required to bail them out.

      A better “economic” argument can be made for conservatives and conservative states.

      ___

      • V- is-to-R Reply

        December 5, 2013 at 11:19 am

        Yeah sure I hear you,However historically people left Indiana and the more conservative states,…”gold rush.” That, also drove private enterprise to build a Trans American “economic” network in commerce numbers that probably will never be matched categorically across the board. If given a chance could be history will repeat itself in that respect “I’m all in” ..somewhere?

      • T-TIME Reply

        December 5, 2013 at 4:39 pm

        i say barrys own illinois gets bailed out first……

  6. Getalife Reply

    December 5, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Everyone should be allowed to be happy. If someone who can help this economy grow and work with people is discriminated against in Indiana… They will go elsewhere. Indiana is still living in the Stone Age. Why are we so far behind all other states?

    • Luther the Fiend Reply

      December 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm

      Yet we are in the top most fiscally sound states! Looks pretty nice from my cave!!

      • Brains Benton Reply

        December 6, 2013 at 10:19 am

        Yeah wer’re also one of the most polluted states, one of the most impoverished, the pct. of uninsured is sky high. and we have one of the most regressive tax systems with a 7% sales tax.

        Yeee haw.

        • Luther the Fiend Reply

          December 7, 2013 at 12:09 am

          Substantiate your statements with credible links or they are useless bomb throwing.

  7. Brains Benton Reply

    December 6, 2013 at 9:31 am

    Kennedy cited the 5th amendment’s equal protection clause in his majority opinion DOMA ruling. The 14th amendment specifically and purposefully says the states CANNOT violate the equal protection clause but Kennedy was to chickenscat to actually follow the constitution and make his ruling apply to all 50 states. How could you reach any other conclusion???

    I don’t see how the lower courts will now waste any time on this LGBT marriage issue. These red state laws prohibiting LGBT marriage are clearly and blatently in violation of the constitution.

    But of course the GOP/TP can’t deal with that and have to go around bullying, demonizing and fear mongering. What are you TPer’s going to do when you run out of people to demonize. This whole charade of a IN constitutional amendment is shameful and ridiculous and it makes the Hoosier state look backward, hateful and regressive…..

    Oh wait.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>