By Jacob Rund
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – Amidst a roar of applause from the hundreds of gay rights supporters gathered in a public gallery, the Indiana House voted to strike a provision from a constitutional marriage amendment that would have banned civil unions in Indiana.
House Speaker Brian Bosma thanks Republican and Democrat representatives and the public in attendance for their civility during discussion of the marriage amendment. Photo by Ben Vandivier, TheStatehouseFile.com
Members voted 52-43 – with 23 Republicans and 29 Democrats voting yes – to eliminate the amendment’s second sentence, which would have prohibited lawmakers from creating a legal union similar to marriage for same-sex couples.
The vote likely ensures that the constitutional amendment will not reach the public for a vote until at least 2016 – if at all. A constitutional amendment must be approved by two, separately elected legislatures to be placed on the ballot for ratification.
The amendment had been approved in 2011 with the civil unions language in tact. Removing it starts the constitutional amendment clock again.
“Stripping the deeply flawed second sentence makes a bad amendment better, but we believe this amendment, in any form, has no place in our state’s founding document,†said Megan Robertson, campaign manager for Freedom Indiana, a group trying to defeat the constitutional amendment.
The constitutional amendment’s remaining language defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The House could vote on it as soon as Tuesday, which would send the measure to the Senate for consideration.
There, lawmakers could reinstate the second sentence, approve the proposal as is or defeat it.
House Speaker Brian Bosma – who had moved the amendment from one committee to another to ensure it would be considered by the full House – said he will vote yes when the amendment is eligible for passage.
House Minority Leader Scott Pelath expresses his frustration with House Republicans and their support of the marriage amendment. Photo by Ben Vandivier, TheStatehouseFile.com
“I’m confident there will be a vote,†Bosma said. “We haven’t walked away from this issue at any point. My two goals announced on Organization Day and reiterated on numerous issues were, first of all, that every member vote their conscious and that the entire body get to work on the bill together. And that’s exactly what happened.
“I’m just pleased to see democracy at work in a positive way on behalf of the people of Indiana.â€
Rep. Randy Truitt, R- West Lafayette, proposed the change approved Monday and it led to powerful speeches from members of both sides of the aisle – and the issue. Lawmakers’ tones were largely respectful and determined.
House Minority Leader Scott Pelath, D- Michigan City, expressed frustration that it took until now for some legislators to realize what he called the gravity of the situation. He pointed to polls that show Hoosiers are dramatically less supportive of the constitutional amendment – and particularly the ban on civil unions – than they had been even three years ago, when the amendment passed easily.
“We said that it was the wrong thing to do then,†Pelath said. “Now, just because the winds are blowing in a certain direction, some more people may have seen the light. But I want the record to show, that the caucus I lead understands that this was the wrong thing to do back when it wasn’t cool.â€
Pelath said he wants the people of Indiana to know who has been opposed to the resolution all along.
“I’m going to continue to remind the people of Indiana who’s been with them and who hasn’t,†he said.
Hoosiers opposed to a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage gathered in the hallway outside the Indiana House chamber as lawmakers debated changes to the measure. Photo by Ben Vandivier, TheStatehouseFile.com
Actually, three years ago, a number of Democrats voted for the constitutional amendment. On Monday, all Democrats voted to strip the civil unions language out.
Still, the change could not have passed without the support of Republicans.
Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, was among those who voted for the change, saying he was choosing “to be brave†after conversations with constituents left him with questions and few answers about the amendment’s second sentence.
“It seemed like the majority of those that support this amendment admitted that they wish the second sentence was not even in there,†Mahan said. “However what I do know is that the people from my district simply ask to be able to vote to define marriage between one man and one woman, period.â€
Mahan said he will now vote to pass the constitutional amendment, even if it means lawmakers will have to approve it again in 2015 or 2016 to put it on the ballot.
“This is what the majority of Hoosiers want,†Mahan said. “Lets pass the amended bill out of the House and I’ll be more than happy to come back next year to support it again and get it to the voters.â€
But Republicans were split. The constitutional amendment’s author – Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero – spoke against the language change.
“I know his amendment is well intended and (Truitt) is very much trying to be helpful with this process and move this HJR 3 along,†Turner said. “However I think his method is doing exactly the opposite.â€
Turner cited examples from other states that currently have statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He said that in a majority of those states, a second sentence is included to prevent marriage in another name, and that they did not affect civil unions or anything similar.
“This house joint resolution, this constitutional amendment, does not affect that, it hasn’t in other states and it won’t here,†Turner said.
And he said stripping out the second sentence opens the amendment to lawsuits and “just prolongs this debate for another 2 or 3 years.â€
“We’ve been debating this for 10 years,†Turner said. “I believe the public in Indiana is very much ready to engage on this, no matter what side you’re on.â€
Supporters have said that pushing the amendment debate into future years boosts the chance that it will never be approved. That’s because a number of other states have been moving in the opposite direction – approving laws that legalize same sex marriage, rather than banning them.
Also, public opinion has been steadily moving toward approval of same-sex relationships.
Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland, essentially acknowledged those concerns when he urged his colleagues to leave the constitutional amendment’s language as it was in 2011 so it could go on the ballot this November.
“It’s an issue of letting the people vote,†Burton said. “All it is doing is killing a piece of legislation that we’ve all worked very hard on to accomplish.â€
Jacob Rund is a reporter at TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.
This is a good thing. Our constitutional process works. All we need is a simple amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, then add domestic partnerships rather than civil unions.
The next election will be the poll that will tell us if Hoosiers are as much against this amendment as has been claimed. If republicans put forth and agenda for this amendment along with domestic partnerships, they will be a secure in their offices as a democrat in an Urbana hotel room.
My prediction is that before 2016 there will be challenge to our marriage statute in an attempt to foist same sex marriage on us through court decree. That would be a disappointment and enlarge the rift between sides rather than heal them. I doubt a challenge would be successful.
What you see here from I-E is advocacy for ignoring the law of the US Constitution AND for State sanctioned bigotry. It is abhorrent (and unconstitutional).
And you are ignorant about the U.S. Constitution and the language therein.
No. No I’m not. Let’s hear it. Explain your point, cause I don’t think you can.
Just declaring someone ignorant and wrong doesn’t make it so. You got any case precedent to back up your dubious claim?
Ahh, There it is again: BWAK! BIGOTRY!
So why must it be same sex marriage when domestic partnerships would work for all?
The Supreme Court already accurately called what you are advocating here as second class citizen status. That is the answer. That you find that acceptable is what identifies you as a bigot.
@Weinz, no the court has called what I am advocating as making anyone a second class citizen. Show me where that is the case anywhere. Colorado has a similar solution, except they choose civil unions which left businesses open to law suits.
You’re calling me a bigot does not make me one but it does identify you as the one who has to run to the last refuge of a losing argument, insults.
BAWK! BIGOT!
I-E…here it is, from the Ruling/Majority opinion of the Supreme Court:
“This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage.” I used second class citizen to refer to this clear and damning distinction you refuse to accept.
Once this precedent was set….the foundation of all of the State laws banning same-sex marriage or restricting marriage to one-man/one-woman changed to standing on sliding sand instead of a solid foundation.
Same-sex marriage is coming to Indiana. You’re wanting to restrict same-sex couples to domestic partnerships relegates those couples to “second-tier marriages” and a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The bigots got called out by the Supreme Court no different than when SCOTUS did the same in 1967 for interracial marriage recognition among all the States, even those that refused by law to recognize them.
You have a different opinion alright. And it is completely bigoted.
You cannot vote to seize citizens equal protection rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
So, you’ve replaced “OH, THE DRAMA!” with “BWAK! BIGOTRY!”, huh? I don’t think the new “snappy comeback” will win you any more points that the old one!
I’m not trying to win points, I’m calling it as i see it. All Weinz has to offer is calling people bigots for the sin of having a different opinion.
I just have one question.
What the heck are you so afraid of, if gay people have the same rights that you do; why does that scare you so much?
I’m not afraid of gays getting married. where did that come from? Oh wait, it’s Sarah G. That explains it.
Yep, you certainly are AFRAID of gays getting married.
You say so with every single post!
Yes he is. I can only figure I-E’s is based on ignorance and fear…as is all bigotry.
@Wienz
BAWK! BIGOT!
Clearly you can’t engage on an intellectual level.
You have proven you want your ay not equality.
I’m done with your narrow minded and low wattage hate. Bye.
You have lost the argument alright. It hurts that your arguments are for bigotry. Simple as that Sir.
I-E, this was a case against bigotry from Day 1.
The loss at the Supreme Court Windsor case, while not settling all of the bias and discrimination against same-sex marriage nationally in one fell swoop…
…WINDSOR was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Same-sex marriage bans and restrictions violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
This is all downhill from here. Finally we can get past this ignorance and move on to more important issues.
And it is fulfilling to see that there is real justice still alive and well in the country.
Are we to believe that you truly think that an amendment to the Indiana Constitution defining “marriage” as being between one man and one woman would be a “healing” thing? I guess you do have a history thinking that if everybody just goes along with IE, everything will be good, though!
NO LKB, I think if we all follow the constitution and look for solutions that work best for everyone things will be better.
If we use the courts as clubs to beat people into submission things will not improve.
It would be nice though to hear why you think defining marriage as between one man and one woman and establishing domestic partnerships for all would not be the best solution.
This is the line that losers on the constitutionality of a law say:
“use the courts as clubs to beat people into submission things”
You are advocating ignoring the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, and are proposing we follow unconstitutional law. Its preposterous.
You can’t vote to strip citizens of their right to equal protection under the law.
Another lie, but at least you didn’t grab your “bigot” crutch this time.
Your side is the only one denying everyone access to the constitution.
Same sex marriage strips all other non traditional unions of their access to equal protection.
For the Nth time, the majority of states have intact amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
What I would love to hear is a reasonable response as to why it must be same sex marriage or nothing rather than defining marriage as one man and one woman and domestic partnerships.
I-E. I get it. You want to provide second class citizen status through domestic partnerships…in spite of the Supreme Court ruling against the same.
It’s State sanctioned bigotry, and it is losing case after case because it is unconstitutional. You can’t vote to strip citizens of their rights to equal protection under the law.
@Wienz, clearly you don’t get it and have no answer other than your my way or the highway option.
And there it is again, “BAWK! BIGOTRY!”
By establishing same sex marriage on the sole basis of sexual preference is preferential treatment that denies all other groups the same access.
Domestic partnerships is the best solution, but you’re yelling bigotry to loud to hear reason.
I do not believe that “separate, but equal” exists, nor is it a solution to anything. Confining the right to marry, and be seen as a family in the eyes of the law, to one class of citizens (heterosexual, two-partner relationships) does not meet the parameters of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. I’ve made that clear before, though, just as you made it clear that you believe “marriage” should be confined to two-partner heterosexuals who subscribe to your brand of religious superstition. I believe that the Courts will agree with me, not you. So do you, or you wouldn’t try so hard to avoid litigating these questions. We really don’t need to keep going over this, do we?
I just have three years to comment about:
1865: The year that slavery was abolished permanently. The issue was NOT “placed on a ballot” for the public to vote on, because a majority of citizens have NO right to vote on the rights of a minority.
1921: The year (or thereabouts) that women were finally given the legal right to vote. With only men being able to vote at that time, do you think for one second they’d have voted to allow women to vote?
1967: Loving v. Virginia (VERY much like the current issue.) Mildred (she was black) and Richard Loving (he was white) were sentenced to prison for simply loving each other and getting married in Washington D.C and returning home to Virginia. They had three children at that time.
The Loving v. Virginia decision by the USSC invalidated laws nationwide prohibiting interracial marriage.
Whether the neaderthals like it or not, the gay marriage issue is well on its way to the same fate as the Loving v. Virginia Law. My question is: why does the state of Indiana have to use millions of our tax dollars to prove to the rest of the country how backwards we are?
History moves forward, even in Indiana, albeit a little slower than in the rest of the nation!
Even as amended, the proposed bill would deny marriage equality. Doesn’t the Indiana Legislature have anything better to do than work backwards and look stupid?
Precisely. The bigots in the State are clueless. But we already knew that. It’s why they continue to lose elections. So misguided, they have now even become anti-business.
Apparently not. Do you want to run? I’ll back you if you do.
You’re absolutely right about the denial of marriage equality not being taken care of with this bill, but at least Indiana doesn’t get national attention by having the issue on the ballot in 2014. It’s going to be fun to see Pence run for the end-zone with this ugly “football” tucked up against his gut in 2016!
Mike Pence does NOT want to run on the same ballot as this horrible referendum issue.
It’s a sure way for him to lose, because there will be many many people who otherwise might not bother to vote that day, who WILL vote him out.
They could flee to Urbana again. It’s pretty stupid of the LBGT community to want to get involved in a dying institution. Marriage appears to work best with Christians but even that is shaky. By the time most couples today reach 35 they have so much excess baggage from prior marriages that they’re not marketable. Letting the state get involved in your relationship is not a good thing and can be costly. Gays will end up building castles in the sky but find out that lawyers collect the rent. Gay marriage could be considered job security for lawyers.
As long as property rights, custody arrangements, and rights to act as “next of kin” are issues, marriage equality is needed.
Domestic partnerships can resolve those issues. So why the same sex or the highway approach?
For fairness and equality. Pure and simple.
@Bill, domestic partnerships would fair and equitable to all even those who do not seek state licensing of their relationships. Same sex marriage only provides special right to homosexuals based on preference while denying the same access to other’s based on their preferences.
So do you have another reason, or do just want what you want even if it is not the best solution?
@Indianaenoch: I want the Indiana Constitution and laws to guarantee, rather than deny, equal rights to pursue and share life, love, happiness, and personal assets to all persons regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal choice of whether their union is consecrated by the state or a religious institution.
I do not want the state constitution changed to deny to a designated group or individual the same basic rights as granted to another group or individual.
IE says: “Same sex marriage only provides special right to homosexuals based on preference while denying the same access to other’s based on their preferences.”
I’ve read this sentence more than once, and I still cant figure out what the hell it means.
I want to know who you think is “being denied the same access” if this thing is passed?
IE, all you can do is write silly gobbledegook, and that’s a sure sign you’ve already lost the argument. You’re a perfect example of a “neo-Christian,” trying to foist your own batty ideas of “civil rights” on the rest of the populace.
@ Bill, marriage between one man and one woman does not deny anyone’s life, love, happiness, or anything else.
Same sex marriage gives homosexuals access to certain short cuts and tax status while denying it to other’s who do not qualify for marriage or choose not to marry.
C’mon IE. Tell us how legalizing gay marriage is going to “deny the same access to other’s based on their preferences.”
What YOU are obviously in favor of is to “deny the same access to others (gay people) based on their orientations.”
Hypocrisy at it’s most oblivious!
POV offers a most ridiculous straw dog argument. Congrats!
Bill Jeffers, I don’t know. . .. I think that pov and IE are tied for first place in the “ridiculous straw dog argument!”
They don’t realize how embarrassed they should be.
Oh, pov. How funny are you? You should really be comedian! You said:
“Marriage appears to work best with Christians but even that is shaky.”
Now THAT got me to laughing, very hard! So, “Christians” are the ones that are most successful at marriage? Are you joking??
The neo-“Christians” in our country have turned so many people off to “Christianity” because we’re all waiting for you folks to put “Christ” back into meaning of the label “Christians.”
What a stupid comment, all the way through.
Amending our constitution is what they do. The majority of states have already constitutionally defined marriage as between n man an done woman. Indiana is behind the curve on this one and is leaving religious organizations and businesses open to destructive law suits.
It was homosexual activist that started this issue not our legislature.
But why don’t we talk about solutions. Would you support defining marriage as between one man and one woman and establishing domestic partnerships for all, or is it same sex marriage or nothing?
This argument continues to lose as unconstitutional in every court in the US, including the Supreme Court. It violates a citizen’s right to equal protection under the law.
No it doesn’t. But again, why not domestic partnerships for all rather than special access based on sexual orientation?
Work on it. I have work to do and will check back later.
Why? Essentially for the same constitutional reason that Southern states can no longer define marriage as a state sanctioned union between a white man and a white woman.
Just like it was the ACLU that started the Cross-A-Palooza issue, right? Only it wasn’t. The Church group offered to sue the City first, remember?
This issue was started when the State denied basic legal rights to same-sex couples.
Bingo.
The people of Indiana have spoken in the constitutionally prescribed republican manner. The squawkers will squawk but they have been overruled by the people. They got what they asked for –– a vote. They have shot their arrows and are now grousing mindlessly with an empty quiver on their narrow shoulders.
If in the future our representatives fail to keep blatant discrimination such as this measure out of the Indiana constitution, federal judges are waiting to bop them again with the ole gavel. Might be time to crank up the Plastic Crosses again as a distraction from the humiliation these deserving folks suffered yesterday. Can’t march ’em while it’s on appeal but just the mention of that fine body of child’s art could make people forget about the strumming the would be marriage owners took yesterday.
It’s really just down to the deadenders now. The same sex marriage issue has been laid bare as another attempt by religion to insinuate itself into our secular government. The federal government will eventually, if not soon, see that such marriages are recognized for federal purposes (taxes, etc.) even in states that have put goofy, hard hearted trash like the proposed Indiana amendment in their state constitutions.
Bandana, great post! Nice to see you again. . . we miss you on the C&P threads!
Wrong, the churches were denied equal access, but they never threatened a suit before the ACLU sued.
That’s not what Keith Vonderahe said. You know the truth, and are denying it. It is people like you who cost “Christians” the respect of so many honest people.
When did he say that LKB? And work on your own honesty before you judge me.
@ IE – out of order d/t format:
He said it just after the decision was rendered, and he said it very clearly. He was trying to make the City look less stupid.
@LKB, so there was no threat of a law suit by the churches to have their request approved, and there would have been no lawsuit if the ACLU had not filed one. Once again you’re caught trimming the edges of the truth.
@Bill, but you’re fine with denying other non traditional unions access as long as you get same sex marriage?
@Enoch: I’m not sure regarding what or which “non-traditional unions” you ask the question.
I would not approve of a constitutional amendment granting a human the right to marry a non-human domestic beast, if that’s what you’re asking.
No Bill, that comes from your own prejudice is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about more than two building a life together, family members who build a life together, or those who choose not be have the life they are building together licensed by the state.
A constitutional amendment with domestic partnerships would also protect business and organizations from lawsuits
IE: “you’re fine with denying other non traditional unions access as long as you get same sex marriage?”
What do you define as ” other non traditional unions?” Please tell us, I’d really like to know what you mean by that phrase!
No, I have explained it numerous times and i really have no interest in an exchange with you.
It doesn’t look like you’re getting a lot of supporters here, so far.
Let’s pass a law against bigotry because it is immoral and against the Bronze Age Book’s principles.(Does is actually say that? Who cares!!??)
Then let’s have a referendum on whether IE and his ilk are bigots. (How can you deny someone’s right to vote on such a referendum? Please note the dripping sarcasm)
After they’re overwhelmingly voted as bigots, therefore they wil be criminals and have their constitutional rights taken away. Since these rabble rousers are against a state law we will have them declarded enemy combatants, after all I think IE may have been Pence’s limo driver and we all know Pence is a terrorist, so by association IE is a terrorist also since he pals around with Pence. And I won’t have to face IE with my charges since we’re all about stripping rights away via referendum.
Forget about habeaous corpus too, so IE rots in jail without a trial. gun rights? Forgeeetaboutit. Oh and anyone speaking up on IE’s behave would have to be a terrorist too so they would also be silenced, the heck with that whole 1st amendement free speechy thing.
Seems fair enough!
Ohh I left out the best part, we’ll have their marriages, and all benefits derived therefrom, taken away!
Would that refreshment protect us from your anti-christian bigotry?
Brian, I love that idea!
You know, the funny thing to me is that pale, stale males are someday (soon) going to be a “minority” in our country.
I wonder how much they (I.E., pov, et. al.) are going to like it when the “majority” gets to vote to curtail the rights of the “minority” (pale, stale males) when that happens?
There’s a contingent from the old Roberts site that hasn’t been heard from yet. I’d draw the line at letting them marry into the human race. The out of towners anyway.
I can’t help that you guys are to closed minded to accept ideas other than your own.
OMG. IE, stop looking in your mirror, guy.
Among those who”are to (sic) closed minded to accept idea s other than your own,” you would be the leader of the pack!
“Would that refreshment protect us from your anti-christian bigotry?”
What the HELL are you babbling about, Enoch?
I’m not “getting” this “domestic partnerships for all” concept. Are you suggesting that all couples who choose to cohabit without a license be regarded as having legal obligations to eachother, sort of like the old concept of common-law marriage? I’m pretty sure that won’t fly.
How about we do away with “marriage” and make all such arrangements “domestic partnerships”?
So you don’t know what it is but you’re against it anyway.
I know what it is when most people talk about it, but you seem to have a different “take” on the concept than the generally accepted one. I guess it is more accurate to say I don’t “get” IE’s concept of domestic partnership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
IE, you really should stop “bawk, bawking” like a wounded chicken.
It just shows everyone your true character.
LKB,
I think that what IE is trying to get at is that he considers marriage, same-sex marriage and domestic partnership as 3 distinct things. I don’t know why one would want a domestic partnership vs marriage if they were differently sexed partners though. So blows the argument. And all people who cohabit do not desire marriage or “partnership”. Perhaps the answer is to come up with an entirely new term meaning “legally joined” and drop the marriage or partnership thing. Such a stupid word-play concern.
Martha, I have to agree. My husband and I lived together for four years before we married, and definitely did not consider ourselves “married” before our wedding day came.
In I.E’s twisted mind (after reading many of his 20,000+ comments on the C&P comment threads) we wouldn’t have even had the right to marry because we were older and there was no way we were going to have children.
It’s nice to see him backpedaling that backwards view, but I can see that no amount of progress (or a court ruling) will drag his Cro-Magnon butt into the 21st century.
That does seem like what he’s trying to get at. You just blew it up quite nicely, though! I couldn’t agree more about the word-play. A loving, committed relationshiip is a loving, comitted relationship, period. Those who wish to have that committment legally recognized and are old enough to enter into a contract, should all get the exact, same legal recognition for that relationship, regardless of their gender or even their numbers. You can call it “George” if you want, but it must get the exact same recognition as any other “George.”
Martha, these are my ideas of how a domestic partnership should function.
The qualifications for a domestic partnership would not be the same as marriage, and a partnership while enlarging access would not provide a legal status like marriage.
Partnerships would work for all cases, but traditional marriage is already established. So why eradicate it and nullify marriages? yes, there is some word play to an extent, but that is what the law is.
@Sarah G.
So under my idea you and your cohabiting boy friend would have easier access to some of the things you call rights, but under same sex marriage you would not have had the same access. How is that a bad thing?
I never said you HAD to procreate, and I have not back peddled on any of my points. It your facts that are twisted.
So IE you are saying there are grades of relationships each having their own set of privileges? If so that would be a legal fiasco. What a tangled mess!! If that is not what you are saying then I don’t understand.
His stance is “all marriages are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
It’s preposterous. And it’s unconstitutional.
@Martha, I am not saying there are different grades of relationships, I am saying there is more than one way to arrive at the same solution.
In a marriage there is a union that is solemnized by a vow/oath and an officiant representing the authority of the state signing off on the license. In a domestic partnership it would be more like signing a contract and the couple could choose to have a ceremony or not. There would be no “married” status.
A domestic partnership could work for everyone, the two sisters building a life together, two friends like the the odd couple who are not gay but live together, even couples who cohabit but don’t want to be married.
With same sex marriage, it will be homosexuals added to the the definition of marriage. why should two lesbian be given married status but not two sisters?
@Weinz
Stop telling lies. My position is that marriage is between one man and one woman. I have said it enough that there is no excuse for you to lie about my views except to be childish and mean.
I-E….there is no lie. Your position is prejudicial, biased and bigoted. And unconstitutional.
(and as both Eli LIlly and Cummins Diesel agree…bad for business)
Live with that.
@Wienz
BAWK! BIGOT! you lied about my views on marriage. That makes you a liar but doe snot make me a bigot.
I asked you before to show me where I have ever said anything bigoted other than the sin of having a different opinion than you.
I have also asked you why you would be against domestic partnerships for all. Did I miss your input on that idea?
The majority of states have a marriage amendment. Are they all economic disasters? Gays are as good or bad of employees as anyone, but no I don’t buy that the best and the brightest are gay.
So a couple activist in high positions claim these companies will fail without same sex marriage. Where’s the data to back that claim? There is none. Saying it no more makes it true than you calling me a bigot makes me one.
No what those partnerships? Why are you for special rights or some and against equality for all?
I-E, you are thrashing about, whining, scraping, desperately clawing for traction on this issue. And have you not noticed your posts don’t make sense?
You’re even warping comments from Eli Lilly and Cummins that the amendment is bad for business into “their companies will fail?”
Desperation, I’ll give you that.
The bigots have the microphone for a while…so we’re gonna hear more of this prejudicial trash. But make no mistake. The Windsor ruling from the Supreme Court broke the camel’s back on the bigot’s demands to seize equal access rights from same-sex couples. Even Scalia acknowledges that.
Proudly whine all the way to losing. I think that’s how you’re defining victory these days.
@Weinz
Eli Lilly and Cummins do not rule Indiana.
Neither your nor they can provide any proof of that Indiana having what the majority of states have will harm our economy.
That’s why when I ask you for facts you scream “BAWK! BIGOT!”
So again, why are you against domestic partnerships that would be equal for all? It would be very similar to what Colorado has. I guess Colorado is a state full of bigots also in your closed mind. Why does you and your boyfriend need Indiana to sign off on your love?
Ok, now I’m finished laughing. IE says: “So under my idea you and your cohabiting boy friend would have easier access to some of the things you call rights, but under same sex marriage you would not have had the same access. How is that a bad thing?”
My “boyfriend” was a 55-year-old man and a respected attorney when we decided to live together. At that time, there was no mention of marriage, because neither of us wanted to subject ourselves into a relationsip that made all the rights and responsibilities of marriage a burden. We “dated for 3 years before we made that decision.
While living together, we didn’t WANT what you call “easier access to some of the things you call rights!” Do you GET IT now?
IE: “The majority of states have a marriage amendment. Are they all economic disasters? Gays are as good or bad of employees as anyone, but no I don’t buy that the best and the brightest are gay.”
You can bet your ass that they’re just as bright as any hetero!
BTW, gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for over a decade. No, the sky hasn’t fallen, and the world hasn’t come to an end.
I-E…
1. Well, it’s clear you are willing to sacrifice a conservative pro-business stance to “fry yourself your egg even if it means burning your house down” by passing your version of morality laws that do not pass constitutional muster. THIS is why the GOP has no use for the extreme-damn the torpedoes-right. That you would go out of your way to provoke two of the State’s most important businesses, Lilly and Cummins, is all the proof anyone needs to see your bigotry. They say it’s bad for business. The success of their business model, number of employees and contributions to the health of the State’s economy commands respect. Perhaps not for you, cause you’re short of a few marbles.
2. Domestic partnerships or domestic unions rather than granting fully equal status same-sex marriages were clearly identified by the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Windsor as “second-tier marriages” somehow holding less status than other marriages. SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional as a violation of equal access to the law. This is like the __th time you’ve been answered this question…by everyone. But as a bigot, we all understand logic and law do not apply to you.
3. Your clearly desperate and clawing for some kind of traction when you discuss “my boyfriend” in an attempt at a slur. None taken. Otherwise, you full well know I’m married decades ago with several kids and several grandchildren. But you’re desperate, we all know that. No matter, I caught your stupid little snowball.
@Wienz
1 The 0pinon of two businesses or a thousand does not make what they say a fact. There is nothing to back their claims and you can not demonstrate the claim in any of the majority of states that constitutionally defined marriage. That is why you had to run back to you refuge and vomit ‘BAWK! BIGOT! again.
2 I am not aware of the US v Windsor having made a ruling on civil unions or domestic partnerships. Can you provide the clause or will you have to resort to your BAWK! BIGOT! defense again?
3 I’m not slurring anyone and I do not know you. You likely know who I am because a certain CP poster who slithered through my public records liked to spread my personal information to others. Your running to insults and making up lies about what I believe is indicative of you as the loser. I use to like you and consider you intelligence and reasonable until your vicious attack of saying I am like Fred Phelps. Now I think you’re a useful putz.
…I-E, you’re on the wrong track on this. You know it. It’s a road of bigots and you’re being forced to defend deservedly untenable positions. Besides, at the end of the day you share far more in common with those that value a private citizens right to pursue their own happy private life. SCOTUS/Windsor broke this, even you know that.
“at the end of the day you share far more in common with those that value a private citizens right to pursue their own happy private life”
…I know this is true I-E, otherwise you wouldn’t be painfully trying to reconcile this by proposing the domestic partnerships. You’re trying to coexist because you do respect a private citizens right to be happy in their own home. God bless that. But if that is true, then in the process do it without stealing away their American right for their marriage to be equal to everyone else’s.
And again with the BAWK! BIGOT! response when I asked for you to back up your claims.
I am one of the few with a clear mind being motivated by what might be the best solution for all. US v Windsor did not do what you claim. The federal government does not regulate domestic unions, marriage.
Let’s be clear. The position is bigoted, there’s no denying it. It seizes equal rights from citizens living their own private lives.
BAWK! BIOGOT!
The only thing clear is that you are a putz who can only see one solution to a problem. That make you narrow minded.
Calling people names and lying about what they believe because they have a different view makes you a mean spirited putz.
So unless you put up some facts, I’m done child.
BTW, why was it important for you to tell me you were a father and grandfather to deny that you are gay?
…I-E, seriously.
Are you under some impression I am the only one in the country who sees States failure to equally recognize same-sex marriages as bigoted?
It’s precisely the bigotry associated with it that is driving the entire country, and the Supreme Court, to stop this madness and stop the inequality.
(I’m ignoring your other comments. They make no sense. You’re plainly just mad. And I know why…it’s not as though you don’t want to make some shared ground. You do. Otherwise you wouldn’t be proposing domestic unions. But as long as they are not equal…
…and SCOTUS set in motion the ruling and precedent to firmly establish by law they are not…
…I-E are fighting an already lost cause. And defense of something by you that represents less than equal?…that you have to defend it when intellectually you know they have to be equal?…it’s driving you nuts. )
You’re certainly not the only one in the country that thinks it’s sports to scream bigot at anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage.
You probably aren’t the only one who would rather have what he wants than to think that there might be a better way.
My comments make sense. I have laid them out in an orderly and reasonable fashion and asked you to tell me why you are against them. All I have in return is you yelling bigot and making claims that are not factual.
The only thing I am upset about is your vicious and untruthful attacks on my character, but that as not affected my clear thinking.
I am glad to see that you have at least turned your brain wattage up enough to at least admit that I am looking for shared ground.
Marriage is established. So rather than add one class of people to it which would indeed deny it to others who qualify, why not leave it alone?
Pass a marriage amendment like the majority of states have so religious groups and businesses are protected from law suits.
Create domestic partnerships so EVERYONE has access to the tax and personal considerations they desire.
How does that make me a bigot?
Equal means equal. To try and say “well, it’s good enough” defies all sense of logic and self-worth to those forced into your second-tier. If you were them? No way you would accept that. Blacks forced to put up with separate but equal for decades, legal mind you, found it equally preposterous.
So equal means equal. Anything else is substandard (and insulting to citizens entitled to equal access to the law). That you somehow find that acceptable is wrong, puts you in the minority of the country (and outside the ruling of the Supreme Court). You already know the law, and you know where it’s logically going. The die is cast here.
I think you know those who fail to receive equal access to the law find the level of insult..preposterous to their human rights. That it is still ok with you? Whew! I know you’re smart, but this makes no sense at all for someone who otherwise believes a citizen’s life is there own to live as happy as they want to be.
My idea is far more EQUAL than qualify gays for marriage and denying it to others who EQUALLY qualify. Civil Unions are separate but equal because they are denied to other’s, but domestic partnerships are open for all.
Another way to make marriage open to all no matter the number, or relationship, but then it is still not equal for those who do not seek marriage.
Or, the state could abolish marriage all together and offer only domestic partnerships or nothing at all.
I am the one talking EQUAL. You are the one talking special rights for some and denying rights to others. I can’t explain why you think less equal is more equal.
….I-E, I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
It sounds more and more like you’re making up legal relationship definitions in a made-up world to fit a scenario that you find acceptable…but the problem is it isn’t the real world.
And such things could be discussed in the hypothetical, but I am not looking at hypothetical. I’m looking at what is under consideration for same-sex marriage and what of those is constitutional. And for the most part…what is fair re: same-sex marriage really is what is constitutional. I’m certain legally, there is only one standard…the Constitution. Anything less than equal marriage rights is wrong. The Supreme Court is clearly ruling on this going forward in the context of whether the parties are being treated as equals. That settles it for the issue. If domestic unions or partnerships or anything you want to call it is not fully equal…then it is illegal discrimination.
You’re running in circles Weinz, chasing your own tail, mostly because you don’t pay attention. There is nothing confusing about what I am saying.
Domestic partnerships to this issue are no more hypothetical than same sex marriage. Nether is being proposed, but both are possibilities. So which would be most fair to all? Marriage for heterosexuals and homosexuals only, or domestic partnerships for all, married or unmarried?
But then if it is about the constitution, the constitution says it can be amended by a referendum. It is the court that will decided constitutionality not a vote, not your assessment.
Despite your false claim about the US v Windsor, the court has not decided that civil unions or domestic partnerships are unconstitutional.
So what’s your beef? What are you arguing about? Let the due process of our system work by allowing a constitutional vote and judicial review…unless getting your way is all you care about.
AMEN!!!!!!! This from a non-religious person. Thanks Bill.
This is an answer to Bill’s post today at 8:49. This site is hard to follow.
Martha, I agree with what you say about this site. It’s VERY difficult to follow!
It wasn’t so annoying when they did not have the large number of posts, that they now have.
I’m with elkaybee and Bill! Why in the world would we take something away from a US Citizen and Hossier (added to a constitution ) ?!?? We need more protections for all! Not Discrimination!
Well, HJR-3 has passed the House and will appear on the ballot in 2016 along with Mike Pence and company, provided it passes the House again in 2016 and marriage equality is not yet Federal law. Those are two mighty big “IF’s”, and Pence is likely about to pee on himself as he may have to tote this albatross along with him on his 2016 run. So much for his ambitions for higher office!
The vote went along party lines, big surprise!
Pardon my ignorance but doesn’t it have to pass the senate yet?
Yes, but from what I am told, Senate approval is a “given.”
Extraordinary.
In spite of two of the State’s most significant businesses and employers, Eli Lilly and Cummins…both warning the GOP led legislature NOT TO DO THIS because it is bad for business….they STILL voted to pass it in the House.
There are still quite a few idiots and bigots in the State, it appears.
And it’s clear THEIR agenda is not pro-business as Lilly and Cummins begged them not to do it. (Right…go tell THEM to go somewhere else if they don’t like it….smart, real smart)
We know that Eli Lilly and Cummins told each rep in a private meeting to play ball or they wouldn’t get their cookies.
What a delicate dance these reps must perform to get elected, taking money from two opposing sides.
So if Eli and Cummins cookies is not getting it scrapped, then that means there is someone with much deeper pockets orchestrating this debacle.
The Kochs, maybe? I think they may be interested in owning a controlling percentage of Mike Pence’s political fortunes.
There is nothing so cowardly as a rightie who fears a “primary” from a far-rightie! Pence is about as far right as you can get, so “owning” him might be a useful asset for their business plan.
He’s definitely for sale!
Comments are closed.