By John Sittler
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – House Speaker Brian Bosma said he’s “exploring all kinds of†options for moving a constitutional marriage amendment out of committee and onto the House floor.
The amendment – which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman – is currently stalled in the House Judiciary Committee where several of its 13 members haven’t said publicly how they’ll vote on the measure.
The committee took testimony on the amendment Monday but no vote is scheduled.
Bosma acknowledged he’s thought about replacing committee members or he could move the amendment to a different committee.
“I’m exploring all kinds of things,†he said. “I’m going to listen to our caucus.â€
Indiana legislative rules give the speaker power to adjust committee members as he sees fit.
Bosma has previously replaced committee members between legislative sessions but never in the middle of one.
“You couldn’t change the numbers (of Republicans and Democrats) but the members serve at the pleasure of the speaker,†he said.
Bosma’s comments came shortly after Republican leaders saw the results of an internal poll on the issue. Bosma said the poll – conducted by Chesapeake Beach Consulting – found 80 percent of voters want the opportunity to cast a ballot on the question.
The group surveyed 800 people and the poll results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Bosma said the poll reinforced his support of both House Joint Resolution 3 and accompanying House Bill 1153, which describes legislative intent.
“The biggest take away for me was that 80 percent of Hoosiers want a vote on the issue. That means people on both sides of the issue would like to have the opportunity to speak on it,†he said.
The poll also found that 54 percent of Hoosiers want to take out the controversial second sentence of HJR 3 which bans any legal arrangement that is “identical or substantially similar†to marriage.
But 54 percent of people also said in the poll they would vote in favor of the amendment with the second sentence still in it.
Bosma said removing the sentence is not currently “Plan A.â€
John Sittler is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.
There was a time when the Tea Party people would have been charging out of the gate supporting the ban on same-sex marriage. No more. Times change.
The correct way to address marriage in Indiana is by a constitutional amendment and let the court decide if it is constitutional. Looks like I am in a huge majority on that truth. It’s no wonder those who oppose it are so hateful.
I would be in favor of removing the civil union sentence except it could be used to bring suits against businesses, like the baker in Colorado, who on religious or philosophical convictions decline service to same sex couples.
Further more, if we are going to have civil unions, marriage-lie, then why not full blown marriage? Civil unions are an “equal but separate” arrangement which I am vehemently against. If I was gay and supported same sex marriage, I would be even more insulted by civil unions.
Never the less, the place to start is with a constitutional amendment rather than a court order. Bring in the haters.
Do you have that list of murderous atheist regimes yet, IE?
First of all marriage is not a Constitutional item. It is not a freedom or a basic right. The government should have nothing to do with it. They stuck their noses in so they could regulate it and make money off the process.
If homosexuals want to get together and have partnerships, then go for it, Why is it that the meaning and definition of marriage has to be hijacked ? It has forever been associated with the union of a man and a woman. Just because it doesn’t match what the homosexual crowd wants to do, does not mean it can be co-opted to mean something else. If folks want to have a same sex union go for it. Call it your own thing civil union/civil partnership etc…, leave the institution of marriage alone and in the context that it has stood for over the many, many years.
You’re clearly not reading the news nor paying attention to the rulings from the Supreme Court and lower federal courts which judge the Constitutionality of all US laws (State or Federal). Those courts have stated that State laws prohibiting same-sex marriage discriminate against those citizens based on their rights to equal access under the law. And States pass laws regarding marriage. The Supreme Court DOES have the right to rule and judge on Constitutional matters (and the Constitution trumps State law) regarding marriage in the States…they did EXACTLY that declaring all States passing laws prohibiting interracial marriage and inter-faith marriage were unconstitutional. Those marriages in the States with laws that banned them at the time were overturned. This precedent guaranteeing equal access to the law is underway regarding same-sex marriage. Give it up.
“It has forever been associated with the union of a man and a woman.”
Interesting, but wait, do you define forever as just short of 6500 years?
Or is forever from when the first Old Testament book was written down by Greek scholars, or was it since various Popes met to edit the “holy” text.
You cannot steal the word marriage for Christians alone. It is MUCH older than your dogma.
Homosexual humans have been around since humans, we see it among other primates, among many species even. I’d even wager it’s a directly correlated with population density and access to resources.
Our species is 150-300k years old, the first Homo line appeared about 2 million years. We may never know when marriage was first defined, but its arrogant and ignorant to think Christian marriage is the only kind in all of these eons.
Its a very fine line, but I think domestic partnerships would be the best answer as long as it was open to all who cohabit. It could work for all and make legal marriage unnecessary, but why should we or how could we dissolve an institution with eons of past precedence? How would your neighbor being married hurt your domestic partnership? Leave it up to those building a life together to decide if they want a civil or religious ceremony.
It isn’t about a CEREMONY. It is about equality under the law, and there is no “seperate but equal.”
lLKB “It isn’t about a CEREMONY.” Really? I didn’t know that.
The law is already equal. Both genders qualify to to marry one person of the opposite gender and not closely related. No one of the same gender, closely related, or more than one person at a time, qualifies for marriage.
Now if we want to make it unequal by only adding those of the same gender to the qualification for marriage, then I would love to hear how that has made marriage equal.
I’m sorry, but did I not already say that I do not support civil unions because they are separate but equal? I think domestic partnerships for all would be a better solution.
This part of your comment is pure hogwash:
“Now if we want to make it unequal by only adding those of the same gender to the qualification for marriage”
You’re trying to add language to the equal protection clause of the Constitution that does not exist. Give me a break.
…..
“The correct way to address marriage in Indiana is by a constitutional amendment and let the court decide if it is constitutional. Looks like I am in a huge majority on that truth. It’s no wonder those who oppose it are so hateful.”
…..
1. I don’t know why this is the “correct way”
2. Seems to me it wastes a lot of government money and takes away time from more important economic matters
3. Doing it is a GIFT to the Democrats. They want the GOP to focus on this kind of unconstitutional morality-style legislation. It lets the Democrats seem sane and more stable compared to the whackos who want to make this an issue.
I think Bosma must be using Wayne Parke’s pollster, but if the poll is valid, it only shows how backward IN is.
That said, Bosma is between the proverbial rock and hard place. He’s going to displease some of his masters, no matter what he does. Replacing committee members should end his political career, and I think he knows it. Moving it to another committee isn’t much better for him, and he’d have to find one that will vote it out of committee.
Shhhhhhhhhhh!
Bathhouse Bosma is ‘exploring his options’ to pander to the bigots. He should be exploring his options to bring businesses to Indiana and make it a place all people would feel welcome living. Instead, and there was never any doubt, he’ll take the low road and throw in with the one-toothers. His poll told him so.
Ultimately we can’t leave civil rights issues like this one to the masses. The federal courts will have the final say on this, not something like Brian Bosma.
The courts should and will have their say, but no matter how much someone wants to be punished for their latent bigotry, it should not be the first say.
Bosma is doing some “job creation” for the battalion of attorneys it will take for the State to defend the indefensible.
I think putting this on the ballot will get out a lot of liberal voters who usually “pass” on off-year elections, and that bodes very well for the Democrats. I think he knows that, as well. He’s in a no-win situation.
Amending our constitution is the job of our legislature. Creating jobs is best accomplished by the private sector.
And throwing out ridiculous and unconstitutional laws is the job of our judiciary. Even if Bosma gets his way, it’s very clear which direction the country is moving, whether Indiana bigots like it or not.
In the end, the law (if it passes) will be thrown out by either the Indiana Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, as all the others already have been.
Which only makes Indiana bigots look even dumber than they already look. It’s going to take a huge chunk of our taxpayer money to defend the indefensible, and in the end, it will all be like throwing good money into a firepit.
Why not leave this to the masses? That is the way the country should run. Majority rules. Not giving the decision to people in black robes who think they now what is best for everyone. Make it a state referendum and have the masses vote. If it is suck a wanted thing then you will have your decision.
such a wanted*
You do live in America, right? Assuming you’re a citizen, that makes you subject to the Constitution AND it’s three branches of government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
You’re advocating a new Constitution. Egypt does that about every 2 years.
Brandon. You gotta get serious about the way this country and our Constitution works if your opinions are ever going to amount to a hill of beans.
Civil and equal rights of all citizens in our great country should NEVER be put up for a majority vote.
What color are your eyes, Brandon? Let’s say they’re green, just for argument’s sake.
Now, lets put up for a majority vote that green-eyed citizens are NOT allowed to marry or benefit from that civil right. Would you want the “majority” to vote that issue for you?
If you know anything about the truth and the history of this country, you’ll realize that slavery was never put up for a “majority vote.” Nor was a woman’s right to vote (at which time, would have been ONLY men doing the voting.) Or in 1967, what if the majority of our country had “voted” to keep interracial marriage illegal and keep throwing couples in prison for doing so? (Look up: Loving v. Virginia.)
Try to educate yourself on this matter and then throw some logic, reason and common sense in there.
The correct way is the constitutional way. Anyone who disagrees with that has a low watt understanding of the constitutional process.
You really like that “low watt understanding” phrase! Did you coin it yourself?
Quit playing the martyr LKB. It’s far nicer than what I have been called by the pack of CP hyenas that have landed on the CCO forums.
What makes you consider a sarcastic comment to be “playing the martyr”? You really need to grow a sense of humor!
Being as you said I was playing the martyr, we must have the same sense of humor.
OMG Enoch. Under the heading of “continual victim,” it points to you.
Please try to grasp this, IE. Short of another crazy, libelous personal attack on my character, which you know absolutely nothing of, I don’t take anything you say seriously, so I am usually grinning when I address a comment to you.
OK, I do respect your opinion take what you say serious, but also allow that we are both spirited. Some just want to call people names and attack them. Please don’t join them.
The 14th Amendment is the correct Constitutional process. It clearly says that we don’t vote on the civil rights of other citizens.
Precisely.
Our constitution says that the legal way to amend our constitution is by refreshment.
The court decides if there is a violation of the 14th amendment. To not have an amendment and to have this issue decided by one court and one petitioner is cheating everyone out of their constitutional right.
LKB, no matter how this issue is settled, someone will fell violated. However, 80% of the people want a vote. If it goes to the ballot, and if the court decides the amendment is unconstitutional, then most will accept that. But if it is decided by court decree, then 80% of the people are going to feel cheated out of their constitutional right and it will create more bitterness than understanding.
refreshment? where did that come from? *referendum.
That 80% is mostly comprised of people who want to include same-sex marriage rights for Indiana citizens…to prove to the rest of the country that Indiana is not a bigot State.
No matter. You will burn the house down trying to fry yourself an egg I-E.
The Democrats want this to bring out Dem voters in droves.
Here it is…right here…..Tea Party Whackos who are so ignorant. It’s pure “Let’s figure out how to lose again.” The radical Tea Party and extreme Christian right are the best thing to ever happen to Democrat politics.
Please cite the part of the Constitution that says we are to vote on the rights of minorities. I’m very interested to see that!
I believe the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were specifically written to prevent referendums on rights by the mob in the street. If “rights” were controlled by popular sentiment no one would have any rights.
Please stop playing semantics! Amending our constitution requires a referendum, and the court, not forums, will decide if any rights are violated. If you have a problem with that process, then you have a problem with our legal process.
@yoda: Absolutely! My copy of the Constitution was printed by the ACLU, so IE is probably suspicious of it. I just wondered if his says something different.
@IE: It isn’t semantics. It’s the law of the land. If you have a problem with it, I guess you should get to work changing it.
Got that list of atheist regimes, yet?
“Someone will feel violated?”
I’m going to ask the same question for the thousandth time that rightwinger like IE can never answer:
What “violation” to you will occur if the gay couple in the next block are allowed to marry?
Please, make it relevant to the wider world, not just the extremely narrow world that you inhabit.
@LKB, The law of the land is a constitutional process to change our constitution and that the courts decide constitutionality. Legislatures, or forums, do not decide constitutionality, and courts do not legislate.
I replied to your regime question several times, but it is easy to miss responses with this format, so here t is again.
The USSR and Red China. You might also consider the human rights violations of North Korea.
However, I am not saying these atheistic regimes are representative of atheist or that atheist would condone the killings. I am saying that the world is largely ignorant of these atrocities.
I would highly recommend the book “Tortured for Christ†by Richard Wormbrand.
You can find it for free. http://torturedforchrist.com/
I think that you will find the book to something unexpected in the grace of Wormbrand and other Christians towards those who tortured and killed them, and it will open your eyes to a largely unreported atrocity while helping you understand the faith of others more accurately.
BTW, Wormbrand was an atheist. His conversion was almost exactly the same as mine.
You’re not making any sense here. Denying citizen equal access to the law and civil rights are not open to majority vote. That is the constitutional way. There’s no debate on this unless you start quoting from some source other than the Constitution.
Marriage is not a right and it is not under the influence of the”Law”.It is not a Constitutional right. It is man created union of a man and a woman.
Brandon…I don’t know what text you’re reading from. It’s not the Constitution. The are plenty of State and Federal marriage laws regarding taxes, survivor benefits, etc.
If you’re reading your copy of the Bible, then some of what you’re saying makes sense. But the Bible doesn’t govern the USA. The Constitution does.
I repeat, The correct way to address is the constitutional way and let the court decide constitutionality.
Anyone who disagrees with that has a low watt understanding of the constitutional process or he has a problem with our legal process.
Aaahahaha! A “low watt” understanding!
Enoch, you’ve got entirely too many mirrors surrounding your computer desk.
You should really stop talking about yourself and that 15-watter inside your skull.
Lets keep Indiana a strong conservative State:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBpoll90_0116.gif&docId=686566&xmpSource=&width=800&height=553&caption=
We have witnessed what has taken place in states that have gone off the liberal “deep end.” The message is clear.
__
Yes Sir. But if you think conservative means violating and denying the civil rights of citizens…take a hike. This is precisely why the fiscally conscious business community has thrown the Tea Party off the boat. The Tea Party Whackos have lost even the Chamber of Commerce citizen vote. Good riddance.
Marriage is not a right.
So, you’d rather do away with the institution than allow marriage equality? No problem, but I’ll bet there are going to be a lot of unhappy couples that lose the rights and privileges of marriage. Good luck with that!
I think we can all get behind some aspects of a Bible based marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Hilarious! I’ve got to show this to my oldest grandsons!
LOL!!
She does some great stuff!
You’re correct! However, you can’t offer that right to one group and not to another, per the 5th and 14th amendments.
Nice try though!
You’re wrong. You offer special parking privileges to handicapped people. It requires demonstrating a unique differentiating factor, a handicap, and a demonstrated need, shorter mobility.
It can not be argued that heterosexuals have a unique differentiating factor, only they can create a new life.
We could argue that procreation no longer demonstrates a need, but heterosexual marriage has eons of past precedence and its validity is not in question.
The question is if we open up the qualifications marriage to include homosexuals based on consent and commitment and continue to deny it to all unions.
If the 5th and 14th amendments are in play, then how do you deny those rights to all?
However, the real issue is that Indiana has a right to amend its constitution, and a referendum is the legal process for doing so. Deciding the constitutionality is a question for the courts. So far in 27 states that question has been that a marriage amendment is constitutional and not violating any amendments.
We shouldn’t deny the right to marry to any unions between parties who are competent to enter into a legal contract! That would exclude minors and animals, but include polygamists, polygynists, etc..
Your numbers on your states are going down, I see. Maybe you will find a trend happening.
My number on the states are the same. Oklahoma had their amendment struck down, and it should have been. Utah is still under review, so I didn’t count it. That means 27 states have constitutionally defined marriage. are any of them being challenged?
Your arguments here are totally unrelated to the law and marriage law. Yes, you can pass new laws…but rather than discuss an existing law, you appear to making the case that govern relationships (who can co-habit with who),….not marriage law.
As much as you try I-E, you’re just making stuff up to justify a Constitutional position. You cannot get away from the precedent set guaranteeing equal access to marriage law by interracial marriage and inter-faith marriage.
He wouldn’t acknowledge a majority opinion of the SCOTUS that went against his bigoted ideological views even if Jesus Christ wrote the majority opinion with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John joining in with concurring opinions.
The writers of the 14th amendement had him, Jim Tomes and their ilk specifically in mind when they wrote the equal protection clause.
Really Brains? So I guess that’s why I said the court was right about Oklahoma. You’re so blinded by your hate and low watt understanding that it is all you can hear your own hate.
There is no difference between a man or a woman of different races that would justify denying interracial marriage. But homosexuality is not a race nor a gender.
Still, none of that matters except to low watt thinkers who can not discuss this issue on its merits and must create straw men arguments.
The correct way to address this issue through a constitutional amendment and allow the courts to decide constitutionality.
Do you have any idea how much pain, humiliation and emotional suffering you cause in young LGBT people? Let alone the pain and suffering your ugly ilk bring on adult LGBT.
Do even try to weasel out by saying that is not your intention, it is MOST definitely your intention to make LGBT citizens second class by definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
Yes, no more than not allowing them to qualify for a drivers license until they were of age. No more than not qualifying young polygamist for marriage. No more than not qualifying two people closely related for marriage. But not as much pain as your “ugly” intention to deny 100% of Hoosiers their right to vote on a constitutional amendment.
My intention is what I stated, that the proper way to address this issue is by constitution, and not any of your nasty tempered ideas with which you want to malign my intentions.
BTW, you are a perfect example of my concerns. It’s not about a legal process or principle; it’s about how people “feel.”
He doesn’t care much for other people’s pain. Getting his way is all that matters, and he takes his silly Bible and makes up things he believes it says. Then, he does everything he can to inflict his way on other people.
The most frustrating part of all of this is, no matter how completely and consistently his mean arguments are refuted, he just keeps making them anyway. It’s sad that he doesn’t know, or can’t accept defeat. He’ll still be babbling this stuff when we achieve marriage equality as a fact, I’m sure.
Is your lying about me caring about the pain of others and my silly Bible you being funny again?
Straw man arguments?
I-E, this was decided by the Supreme Court.
You’re making things up…we’re talking full-blown denial from you.
Just making things worse for yourself…(and you’re needlessly hurting people).
Burn that house down every time you fry an egg?
15 watts.
lol! Like Moammar Khadafy said, “You guys kill me.”
lol. Glad we amuse you. 🙂 If we can’t be smart we should at least be entertaining. I use to like Wienz until he accused me of being a bigot like Fred Phelps because I don’t have the same opinion as Weinz. I have no more use for a low watt thinker who runs to the last refuge of a losing argument, insults, than I do for Fred Phelps.
Bosma considering replacing those on the Judiciary committee who won’t vote his way!!????
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
These knuckle dragging bozos must be getting WAY more blow back to this medieval unconstitutional amendment than they ever imagined.
These TP/regressive haven’t won a single time in court!
In fact they’re getting legally shot down by conservative justices.
How far out on the whackadoodle ideological spectrum do you have to be that Scalia/Thomas etc won’t even hear your case!
I expect the bozos in the State House will get Indiana some free publicity on this, but it isn’t the kind they want.
Looks to me like it’s those supporting homosexual marriage who are running in fear. Otherwise, they would rely on their claim that most Indiana voters support same sex marriage.
Very telling that on an unabashedly conservative online news outlet there are very few people still urging that gay folks be denied the right to marry each other. Except for one, their protest is mild. They know the horse has left the barn.
Only The Inventor remains. Inventing new and ever more ridiculous rationales for sustaining the bigotry even as the concept of legal same sex marriage glides towards the Supreme Court. It is enroute to a conclusion that will serve only to cause further embitterment to the already seriously bitter. To those who would try to codify their holy book into secular law.
Must be awful to be so wrong so often and for all practicable purposes unable to defend one’s self or positions. You’ll have that when wrong, wrong and wrong.
When the vote is taken, then we will see how the majority of Hoosiers feel about marriage. Until then you may speculate on the issue all you wish.
Have you thanked your parents for the gift they gave you?
___
How the majority of Hoosiers feel doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, either way the vote goes. It’s all about the US Constitution, like it or not!
You’re right, that’s was Brian’s argument is useless. In fact, I have said from the beginning that the issue is being driven by emotions rather than the constitution.
You’re wrong however in saying it is is about the US constitution. It’s about Indiana’s constitution first.
(I-E. Your arguments are pure foolishness. And you wonder why rather than disagreement, you get ridicule and loss of respect….)
….you’re running out of dignity I-E. Your arguments are unreal.
+0
What attending a town hall/meet your legislature/council meeting is like in SW Indiana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On73aHpgdSQ
AAAAaaaaHAHAaaaaahhh! They look like’em too!…in order.
That lady speaker at the podium,and the old fart cronie fueler that orated after her.
Thanks, Fell Out, The Chair Laughing! “FOTCL”
Thanks Brains,I did see something of importance on the broadcast news tonight,it was about the chemical plum in the river…observation,denial and such. The usual “unwed marriage of news partners”,elevated and fornicated per ordered,as well.
You all be careful,the people in WV,that were told the water was ok the other day were told yesterday “as reported by NBC nightly news last night”that pregnant women shouldn’t drink the mess, umm..48hrs after they said it was fine,must bee an endocrinological concern,or lack of data thereof.Pregnant women there are just a tad upset.
Fussing about who gets married,how they live,yet allowing environmental screwing up of the genetics in the womb,then the same boneheads blowing off about same sex marriage,abortion and everything else the SCOTUS has already addressed anyhow. “Good grief.” (Charlie Brown)
Then they’res health concerns and who gets who’s tax funding to blow on some more time wasting BS.
like EKB says “doesn’t really amount to a hill of beans.” [rancid,and refried]
I’m telling my people there in the metro,to avoid the tap water for drinking starting about 10:00am saturday till I’m confident the slug has passed.
Cincinnati told’em yesterday the thing took about 22 hours to pass downstream. By the time it gets there in Evansville it will be more diluted and thus more spread out. So,probably at the rate of flow right now chemical slug will likely take about 25-30 hours to totally pass,then another week to get out of the water system by use rate if they leave the intake open,and filtration doesn’t clear it.
Something that probably will affect one’s family there,and with the proper attention completely preventable. Marriage,family law, and the well being of the average Indiana family?
My steadfast ole Indiana farmer Grandpa always said “Drink some Water boys its the best drink in the world!” “Doesn’t sell very good though”,in a lower voice,me and the cousins always wanted a soda pop after working in the dairy farm hay fields during a hot august day. He would reccomend the well water there,good stuff.
That’ll be the next thing they tax and ruin and screw up most likely. Its getting hard even to remain a centrist when comes to what’s really, “best for the mess”,so to speak.
Hoosier family Priorities…. SCHaaHeeezzz!
let all perverts marry….. just let the churches decide if they want to marry the perverts or not………it is and should always be the churches right to decide……….period……..
….this guy gets invited to dinner a lot, I bet. Whew!
LOL
Sure go ahead. Knock yourself out. The constitution even protects your right to practice whatever superstition you like.
BTW in the beginning of the Catholic Church they wanted nothing to do with marriage. They couldn’t have cared less. So much for “protecting traditional marriage”.
Men would offer daughters over to prospective son-in-laws or military/governmental allies.
Sexual attraction was only a consideration for the men, the women had very little say so.
Around 1000AD some couples began asking the priests for blessings and to confirm/be witnesses for the rightful heirs to property and such.
There is your “Traditional marriage”
Very creative.
Science has denied the shamans their divine right to take credit for the sun coming up and other less impressive natural phenomena. They are of little utility to a modern world and suddenly trying to own marriage and make its rules conform to their violence-laden holy book is a sign of desperation in their struggle for relevancy. We can expect more stunts like their ludicrous Kids Art Cross charade.
Coupling attempted ownership of marriage with strictures against same sex couples is typical of the way the church has operated through the ages. The remnants of the shaman class have the most strident of the bigots right in their crosshairs. So do the cheapo politicians like Brian Bosma. It’s like hiring a brainless megaphone and not even having to pay for the batteries. Their willing bootlickers don’t even know they’re being used yet again.
Heh.
Man of man you said a mouthful and I couldn’t agree more.
The 2010 election was one of the worst things to ever happen to this country.
Instead of the hateful bigots and baggers being punished at the box office for their obstruction, sabotage, and treachery they were rewarded with a huge takover of the house and dozens of state legislatures.
They campaigned on jobs, jobs, jobs and the minute they got in power they began their assualt on civil liberties and obsequious worship of the gun lobby and the 1%ers.
The House passed to up literally HUNDREDS of abortion bills, attacked minorities and immigrants will unconstitutional bills and Voter ID, took away the rights of teachers, women union workers and on and on.
We continue to pay and pay and pay and pay for their zealotry.
“box office” LOL should be ballot box.
Well said, Bandana. The whole tie between politics and church goes back a long, long way, at least to when the Christians decided to take the belief in re-incarnation out of the Bible, so Theodora would sign the Byzantine Empire on to the faith. I’m sure there are earlier examples, but that one has always been a favorite of mine.
Are we changing this into a religious discussion now?
BTW, did you find my list of atheistic regimes that murder Christians? What did you think about Richard Wormbrand and the persecution he suffered under the Soviet Block?
Those who want to deny Hoosiers their constitutional right to amend their constitution must know two things.
One, despite claiming that most are against defining marriage as one man and one woman, they know the amendment would overwhelmingly pass.
Two, they know if it passes its constitutionality would stand the scrutiny of the courts.
Otherwise they would favor allowing the constitutional process and end this debate forever.
The thought of voting on the innate human rights of any one class of US citizens is repugnant to decent, educated people, IE. That’s the bottom line.
There is no “fear” concerning such a vote among supporters of marriage equality, even though Indiana has enough knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers to possibly carry the vote. SCOTUS will handle that. We are just sickened at the idea of such a thing as voting on our neighbor’s equality.
Your disingenuous babbling and irrational double-talk is disgusting.
The only right being denied is the innate right of the citizens of Indiana to vote on their constitution. If the amendment violates a constitutional right, then the courts will decide. You do not have the right to decide for your neighbor.
Now was the rest of your post more of you be humorous or were you being mean?
Yes and when the SCOTUS delivers the coup de grace to your ugly bigotry and discrimination you will respect their final say so and drop the whole issue?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Just as much as you zealots have respected Roe/Wade.
Do bore me with your low watt insults Brains. Pointing your crooked finger and yelling bigot is all you have to bring to the table.
If SCOTUS delivers the coup de grace, then I will have the same response I had concerning Oklahoma.
I don’t know what it has to do with this issue except you are desperate for a real point, but I have no more respect for RvW then I have for Dred Scott. Wouldn’t a right to life be a prerequisite to a right to marriage? so end your bigotry against the unborn first.
15 watt on a dimmer switch.
I was, and am, being honest.
I did see your “list”. It is the pathetic effort I expected.
Rave on, and as usual, declare yourself the “winner” in this debate. As always, time will tell.
You’re giving your honest opinion, but that does not mean you are right.
My list was the facts. Atheistic regimes has the worst human rights records. Own it.
THIS is exceptionally well said. I-E is swimming in his own soup so much he has no idea how repulsive he is being.
15 watts on a dimmer switch.
You guys are so narrow minded and ate up with hate that not one of you can see that having domestic partnerships would be the best and most solution to this issue.
most *fair
The man who wants to deny other human beings access to something he enjoys, marriage, is calling those who want to give that right to everyone “narrow minded and ate up with hate.” LOL!
Do you not get how ludicrous that is, IE?
‘Do you not get how ludicrous that is, IE?” yes, it’s not. LOL
The woman who would deny Hoosiers their constitutional right also wants to give gays special rights and disqualify others.
You’re just to narrow minded to consider anything but your “my way or the highway solution.”
Now how about those atheistic regimes? Bet you love them. No crosses on their sidewalks is there? LOL!
I have had jars of lightening bugs that are brighter.
I have had jars of lightening bugs that are brighter.
Just can’t find the right reply button sometimes.
No he doesn’t and he never will. That is why responding to him is a useless waste of time
Up is down, down is up, whatever suits his ideology at the moment. The color of the wall is the color he says it is. His actions and words reek of bigotry but by Dog he is not a bigot, you are. A disingenuous, prevaricating sniveling little gollum, consumed and tormented by religious zealotry but feeds of it all at the same time
The TPer’s aren’t any better. If Obama is in DC he should be out amongst the people selling his idea. If he is out with the people he is out shamelessly campaigning and should be back in DC working with congress on everything they can sabotage and filibuster away.
If Obama spit up gold bricks for them they would complain that they weren’t platinum and whine that “other” people got gold bricks too.
I know, Brains. I think I am simply going to return to my former policy of ignoring the man. It is pointless to try to have a meaningful discussion with him and his jar of lightning bugs.
……..I guess you’re dying to be the last guy in the room to acknowledge he’s wrong on same-sex marriage. I get it. No worries.
I have had jars of lightening bugs that are brighter.
I have had jars of lightening bugs that are brighter than yours three times.
So there
So There So There So There
And as my buddy tommiromo would say, ……………………pervert
Looks like I am the only guy in the room who is intelligent and open minded enough to work for a solution that is fair to everyone.
Domestic partnerships will resolve the personal and financial needs of anyone wanting to build a life together, not just homosexuals, while not putting churches and business in danger of destructive law suits.
But then for someone to see the value of such a plan, he has to be open to change. That’s hard for low wattage thinkers when it’s easier just to call people bigots like Fred Phelps and claim to have the highest moral values with which he can judge anyone who doesn’t think like him.
The correct way to address this issue is by constitutional amendment and let the courts decide if it is constitutional. That is how this great nation works…well…how it used to work.
That’s hilarious. YOU trying to convince others to be open to change.
Even funnier, you make your case with another version of “You can have any color you want as long as it’s black.”
So everyone gets that you don’t like me and that you look for every opportunity to malign me. Big deal. What would you have against domestic partnerships when that would be more fair for everyone?
Enoch I hope you realize I’m just playing around.
As long as you and I don’t clash over the abortion issue, I actually like your style.
My jar is bigger than your jar. It’s all good Reg. You remind me not to take myself to serious.
It’s good to clash over issues. That’s how we learn and test our ideas until it turns to insults.
The backbone of America is small business owners.
Small business owners have my unconditional respect as of you are one.
Later
Repairs cars is a business.
Another thing your wrong about. Repairing cars is a business and I know my way around under the bonnet, but that is not what I do for a living. What great thing do you do? maybe we can demean it.
*you’re
Comments are closed.