IS IT TRUE ….. SUNDAY

1. The ban on something that’s already illegal is bad for business and furthers our negative redneck inbred backwater reputation around the country.

2. Oh and shame on Ron Bacon.

3. I am saddened that Mr. Bacon, Mr. Tomes, and Mr. Washburne are voting for this Amendment. I’m particularly upset with Mr. Tomes. I know how much he appreciates the Second Amendment, so I would have though his love for individual Liberty to be stronger than this.

   What an unnecessary encroachment on individual Liberty by the State! I am disappointed and, frankly, a bit ashamed of these three men. Don’t you three realize that all this will really accomplish if it passes is drive away some people and businesses from our great State? Don’t you have a clue that this stance of holding one’s sexual preference as a matter of State interest is anathema to the idea of freedom of worship as well? Marriage is a matter for the pulpit, gentlemen, not the State.

   Disappointed. Big time.

4. To Mr. Washburne…. You were on our local libertarian Republican slate the last election. I voted for you and got others to the polls for you as well. That won’t happen again if you go through with this shallow, petty, unthinking vote, which will only infringe on Liberty in the end.

   I strongly urge you now to reconsider. Stand for something real, not this pettiness.

   • Oops. Confusion got the better of me there. I mistakenly said I voted for Washburne. That wasn’t correct. You weren’t on my ballot. You were on my slate I sent out for others in your District though. I’ll make sure they hear about this.

5. To any republican using the argument that you would like to see the public vote on this issue and not the republic you have elected, i ask you this; Will you stop pushing for democracy? By definition you stand behind a republic. If we didn’t have a republic I wouldn’t be married to my african american wife and my kids wouldn’t be allowed to go to public schools without dealing with segregation. Thanks to our republic our minorities have rights. Blacks would never have been able to vote, be considered a real person, or do any of the basic things everyone person should be able to do. Democracy only allows the majority of the public to get their way while the rights to minorities are ignored. Stop picking and choosing when you want a republic and when you want a democracy. Your answer should change whether its gun rights, abortion rights, or personal marriages. Thanks! May our great republic of educated folks do the right thing this coming session in Indy.

   I have heard of all the other excuses of why HJR 6 should pass but I have been hearing this is the main argument I have been hearing currently. It’s an invalid one. I have arguments against all the other reasons as well. My marriage was once illegal is a good one, a court doesn’t need pre determined party definitions to make a ruling on a divorce issue, its already in the state constitution, and its simply no one else’s business either. I could go on about this but i will stop there.

   • Agree. These people need to DO THEIR JOBS and strike this down in its tracks. No need to wipe their hands clean of the issue and tell citizens to do their jobs for them. Any Liberty-loving REPUBLICan should know what to do with any legislation creating special privileges or undue burdens on any subset of society, even those with whom we personally agree or disagree.

     As Tommy rightly points out below, these are the selfsame libertarian, conservative principles which lead us to reject the welfare state on principle and champion personal responsibility and private charity for those most vulnerable.

     This should be easy for these fellows, but they clearly aren’t listening to the right people.

     • Our constitution IS THEIR JOB.

   • Phil, this vote is not about a democracy verses a republic. It is the constitutional method to change our constitution. are we being constitutional by denying the due process established by our constitution?

     Further more, you are mistaken in claiming that marriage is addressed in our constitution. >>Marriage is not addressed in our constitution.<<

     To be honest, I am disappointed that you would put forth your opinion as informed when clearly you are not. I had to also point this fact out to Bart Gadau who, like you, was stating it as a fact.

     Honestly, I can't support a representative who does not know the constitution he wants to represent, and, worst of all, followed the mob mentality rather than educate himself on our constitution. You guys are not dummies and I am amazed at how you are following a campaign based on emotion and misinformation rather than reason and facts.

     While I strongly agree that we do not want majority rule that robs people of their rights, I am more concerned about the other option, a court decree by the federal government. Several of the most recent of states establishing homosexual marriage have not been by a legislative process but a court ruling.

     Homosexual marriage is not about civil rights and equality. In fact, linking it to civil rights has cheapened that movement. There is nothing different between a man and a woman of the same race or a man and a woman of different races being married. There is a difference between between two men or two women being married.

     Also, "how is it liberty" when we offer tax considerations and property rights to those who only seek state sanctioning of their union?

     While I want to see all people able to build lives and leave legacies together, and I certainly think there are issues that need to be addressed, singling out homosexuals to qualify for marriage will, and already has, caused more inequality that it has corrected. Laws based on marketing and emotion are bad laws.

     When we begin asking states to sanction our love, where do we draw the line? And a line will be drawn at someone's morals.

     We already have business being sued and losing for declining particular services, like baking a wedding cake for a same sex marriage, and church organizations being forced to provide facilities. What is amazing to me is that the Colorado baker lost his case in a state that constitutionally defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

6. phil everyday more and more people go on welfare and the majority gets some kind of government check that is taken from the minority that is paying taxes…….phil should the majority receiving government checks still be able to vote for more of the minority pay checks

   • What the hell does that have to do with civil rights? Oh, and you’re exaggerating again.

   • Tommy, I somewhat agree in principle. I believe in voter ID and wouldn’t be against a w2 or 1099 in addition. This entitlement problem creates more problem than meets the eye, particularly illegal immigration. People not wanting to work is not the problem, it’s people not knowing how to work. We have 40 plus years of liberals teaching “Learned Helplessness”. I think there is a direct correlation between entitlement programs and the increased criminal activity in this country. I base this observation on 20 plus years experience as a conservative in the social services industry. A liberal social worker will give you a fish, a conservative social worker will give you a fish and then teach you how to fish.

     • “… wouldn’t be against a w2 or 1099 in addition.”
       Now THERE’S an un-American crock for you. Housewives and students who don’t work shouldn’t get to VOTE???
       For that matter, a homeless person should not be entitled to the rights of citizenship according to you. You think a taxable income should be required in order for a person to vote? What about the domestic workers who employers don’t pay taxes on? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the 24th Ammendment to the US Constitution, or just the general basics of democracy.

       • Since the election year has started it’s time to break out the republican BS magic decoder ring!

         I’ll focus on jobs – I’ll sponsor dozens of unconstitutional abortion bills attacking women’s reproductive rights. Richard Mourdock is a great American!
         I will stand by my conservative principles- ALEC will tell me what to do, when to do it and how to do it.
         I will keep Indiana business friendly. – I need those corporate donations! I will turn a blind eye to pollution and the destruction of our environment.
         I will be fiscally conservative – Corporations and the ultrarich will get all the breaks! I will work to keep our taxes as regressive as possible and try to hide as much tax as I can in sales tax because nobody really has a clue just how much they pay for that tax! I will do all I can to starve and hamstring government so I can then claim how ineffective it is.
         I will support the second amendment – I will keep in place Indiana’s lax gun laws so the profits to the gun mfgs can keep rolling and “Law abiding gun owners” can continue to make gun runs into Indiana and the sell them out of the back of a van on the streets of Chicago. Then we can claim their gun laws don’t work!
         A twofer!

         I’ll reform education- I will do everything in my power to rig the system to insure our corporate donors err friends have a pretext to privatize all of our schools. Tony Bennett is my hero!

         We should follow the constitution and I will make sure all of our laws pass muster before voting on them. – I will ignore SCOTUS decisions that I don’t like and tie up the courts relitigating every ruling that didn’t go our way. I can’t wait to take away the rights of unions, teacher, minorities, women and any other possible democratic group.

         I will crack down on the freeloaders and end government dependency – Part of my job is to constantly demonize the poor and to make low income working people feel like the only thing between them and a comfortable life is the taxes they pay for “freeloaders”. The 4th amendment? Sorry that’s for rich white people only!

         I will end government waste and inefficiency – I will conspire to privatize everything! Who cares about conflicts of interest, our overcrowded prisons and studies that show charter schools do no better than the public schools if you factor out the cherrypicking of students

     • ” A liberal social worker will give you a fish, a conservative social worker will give you a fish and then teach you how to fish.”

       I DO hope you were never a social worker. I was. I can tell you that is one ridiculous statement.

       • Yes conservatives will teach a man how to fish with licenses and fishing waters controlled by the their oligarch donors and benefactors who just happen to pour toxins and pollutants into the waters.

         If you complain about how unfair that is your told to “get a job” and work your way up the pyramid after all its a “free market” and someday if you work really hard someday you too can i̶n̶h̶e̶r̶i̶t̶ I mean, own, some fishing waters!

       • Do tell how the statement was ridicules.

Comments are closed.