IS IT TRUE January 12, 2014 (Weekend Editon Part # 2)



IS IT TRUE –Weekend Part IS IT TRUE that more than 275 people attended the “Meet Your Legislators” session held at Central library yesterday?  …the main topic of discussion was the issue of the “same-sex marriage” resolution that would amend the state constitution?

IS IT TRUE State Representative Wendy McNamara stunned those in attendance when she stated that she has no idea how she is going to vote on this most important civil rights issue?  …many people at this meeting are saying she is just playing political games but shall to vote to put this resolution on the state ballot?

IS IT TRUE we commend Dr. Robert Dion, Chairman of the U of E Political Science Department for taking State Senator Jim Tomes to task on his misguided opinions on this most important civil rights issues? …it was obvious that Dr. Dion’s knowledge concerning this subject was light years beyond Senator Tomes? …don’t be surprised to see Mr. Tomes vote to put this issue on the state ballot also?

IS IT TRUE that State Representative Tom Washburne stated the lack of data is why he is having trouble voting not putting this issue on the state ballot?  …Washburne comments was considered to be laughable by most in attendance because of his right wing political views? …it is obvious that Mr Washburn shall vote to put this issue on the state ballot?

IS IT TRUE we are really surprised that newly elected State Representative Holli Sullivan didn’t attend her first official “Meet Your Legislators” meeting because many of those in attendance what to hear how she stands of this issue?  …people in attendance at this meeting were told she couldn’t attend because of a prior commitment?  …we expect her to vote the same as Wendy McNamara, Tom Washburne, Jim Tomes and Ron Bacon on this issue?

IS IT TRUE that State Senator Vaneta Becker is leaning to vote to put this issue on the state ballot?  …that State Representative Gail Riecken shall vote to keep it off the ballot?

IS IT TRUE if you wonder why Indiana is often thought to be filled with knumbskulls more reminiscent of the “Old South” just sit back and examine what our elected officials spent last Saturday waffling around over?…anyone in favor of trying to legislate away the United States Constitution at the state level is unworthy of holding public office?…the mindless opinions expressed by Tomes, Washburne, and McNamara on this personal issue with no ill side effects makes many Hoosiers ashamed of this state?…there are plenty of problems that need to be solved that are not destined to waste money and be struck down by the United States Supreme Court?…these fools would be better served to attend to real problems and let people live their lives in peace?

IS IT TRUE we expect public showings of “reefer madness” to be the next stupidity to come from this group?


  1. How many jobs does this create? I’ll never understand the hypocrisy of the republican party.

    • We can’t receive the blessings of God until all the laws of Leviticus are enforced!!

      Now go out and stone your daughter to death for fornicating! Also all the adulterers and blasphemeres should be put to death too! Only then can Jesbus and skydaddy swoop in bless us with all the bounties and glories of God and manna from Heaven.

      Oh wait you say Jesbus cancelled out and voided all those Old testament vindictive verses and told us to love one another! We just happen to agree with SOME of them.

      Well holy criminees you libs told us we can’t pick on the minorties anymore so if we can’t punish the gays and lesbians who else is their left for us to demonize and demogogue against!
      I guess is no bridge in Indiana to shut down so the R’s will just have to be satisfied with with voter ID and a 7% sales tax to punish the poor.

      • The typical Christian belief is that the Levitical laws were done away but not the moral requirements. These are expressed by James and Paul in their epistles. I agree with this, but that is beside the point.

        In this country, it is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The religious beliefs of a person can certainly impact how or why a law is drafted and passed. This is evident from reading the Declaration of Independence. It can also justify why the government acts, from fighting the Civil War, as articulated in Lincoln’s second inaugural address, to civil rights legislation.

        The argument constantly made is that the prohibition of same sex marriage is based on religion alone. Marriage is a license and can be regulated as such. It applies without bias; if you are a male, you can marry a female and vice versa. Marriage was established not only because it encourages procreation, but it also establishes unique legal rights that protects both parents and children created in such bond. This is necessary for a nation to survive. Without the requirement that this bond must have the biological capability to generate children, you destroy a nation’s incubator. The family unit, officially sanctioned via a marriage license, now becomes anything, from polygamy, to the elimination of even having another human being be a party to relationship.

        This will make marriage seem less valuable, and result in fewer children being reared in an environment that promotes the best chance for them to become successful adults. Having a child is the easy part (maybe, ask the Russians and Northern Europeans); creating a successful society by redefining marriage for people simply in love, be it with a dog, carrot or cheeseburger, is another question.

  2. To Senator McNamera: Sad to know that you live in a world where diversity is something that is known to you and yours, but you will be a puppet and only vote the way Bosma tells you.
    Please see the writing on the wall. Each individual should not be told how to live their life.

  3. Gail Rieken is awesome! She stands for the right things and is always looking for the best interest of society and children.

    Proud to say I voted for her!#onyourteamGail

    • livelife: Did you attend the meeting? Gail said very little at the meeting.

      Why are you hiding behind an assumed name? Be a standup Democrat. Say who your are.

      • Wayne, You only asked who the assumed demo is not who Pov a probable rep is. Why? Gail may have said very little at the meeting because she knows how she will vote and she knows that the fix is in with the reps.

      • Is it really wise for the party chairman to come onto a blog and chastise people? Seems there are better things you could spend your day doing. Petty.

    • Gail kidnapped our constitution and held it hostage in Urbana. I have no respect for her as a legislator.

  4. My take:

    McNamara pleaded about how so many of her constitutents were both for and against this measure and how unfair it was because she was going to anger a large group no matter what. Welcome to poltics sweetie!
    Either stand for civil rights, the constitution, and freedom or cow to the bigots of the religious right.

    She will vote as told as stated above.

    Washburne also made a sad plea for what a tough spot he was in and how this was such a legal gray area. He rambled on and on and on and on in Palinesque word salad fashion even reading the amendment word for word to the audience trying tu run out the clock. He failed and was cut off by the moderator. His pleas were obviously insincere and will gleefully vote to take away the rights of others.

    Tomes continously hid behind the right of everybody to vote on a measure that is already law just like his bigoted historical predecessors have hid behind the camouflage of states rights and referendums to justify and enforce their ugly discrimination.

    Becker cut to the chase and said the SCOTUS would ultimately decide. Sad, but she will also vote against the constitution and to take away the rights of others.

    John Scott Foster asked what will happen to society if two gay people who love each got married and silenced the audience. Of course Tomes couldn’t let it go and went even lower than I could imagine and pulled out the children will suffer card. Yeeeeech.

  5. I am embarrassed again by my state and its chicken-shi# elected officials. Why is this time being wasted? Why are individual rights being debated? Why do we need an amendment when a law already exists (which will soon be overturned)? Where is the separation between church and state? Why is it so hard for the people that have been elected to stand up for something rather than cost the state more money to hold an election on something that will ultimately go to the SCOTUS? What if every elected official had an adult child who was a homosexual? How would they want that person to be treated by the state they are now attempting to serve? Such backwater thinking makes me want to scream!! I can honestly say that these “elected public servants” are serving only themselves with the exception of Ms. Reicken. I believe she “gets” a lot of societal issues that effect home, family, children, and rights therein. I have always voted independently but it seems that it is may be write-in time. These people have no capacity to make coherent decisions.

    • Good post. I’m a born Hoosier and I’ve lived here all my life, but I’m beginning to struggle to figure out why I shouldn’t be ashamed of my state.

    • PS My mother (rest her soul) who was born in 1917 would have laughed off this amendment. She saw people as equal and treated them accordingly. This thinking that the state is trying to push through is REALLY OUTDATED!! I will add that at age 65 I would find you laughable if the situation weren’t so pathetic. Delete the amendment.

    • Defining our constitution is the job of our legislators.

      Individuate rights are not being debated. If that was so, then what about the rights of an individual to marry more than one person, a close family member, or being denied legal considerations for not marrying?

      We need an amendment because laws are based on the constitution. Not having one leaves us open to the courts deciding.

      This amendment is not a religious, philosophical, or scientific statement. There is no separation of church and state in our federal or state constitution.

      With or without this amendment, Indiana is headed toward SCOTUS.

      The sexuality of our legislators’ or their children should not be the determining factor of our laws. Our constitution is the guide to determine our laws.

      Twenty nine sate have a constitutional definition for marriage, only four have not. It makes me scream that some cling to emotionalism by calling Indiana “backwater” rather than debating the issue on it’s merits.

      Politicians should not hide their positions form the people, but Reicken has shown disregard for our constitution by flee-bagging to Urbana. What is being hidden is that those opposing this amendment want to sneak same sex marriage around the constitution.

      If having same sex marriage is the solution to the concerns of same sex unions, then Reicken and those supporting same sex marriage should introduce it to the amendment. They won’t, because they fear public opinion just like those who support it.

      Won’t we all be glad when the issue is finally decided one way or another? We should avoid making enemies of each other while it is being decided. 🙂

  6. I agree with Martha totally! McNamara and Washburne are totally clueless! Wasburne wants stats on everything before he can do anything. What are your stats? Geesh. Wendy… Well that is a whole new ball game. She has loads of friends that are gay… And now pretends they don’t exists. Quit acting like we did not help get you elected then you turn your back on us. Such crap! Since it is so hard to decide we will see if you even acknowledge anything we said in meetings. We are your constituents. You pretend that this is close to your heart. Don’t be chicken. Do the right thing! You may need us back in your corner.

    • McNamara did the same thing to women and teachers during 2010 and 2012.

      Proclaiming how much empathy she had with teachers and writing letters to teachers about her “teaching background” and how she indentified with the struggles they go through. Same for women.

      Then she goes to Indy and votes to take away the rights of teachers and women, defunding PP etc.

      The only thing people dislike more than a hypocrite….
      is a traitor.

  7. Cirlceoflove is right on about McNamera. Stop living in the 1800’s and face reality.

  8. I wasn’t at the meeting because family matters have me away; however, I must reiterate how disappointed and ashamed I am in my Republican State Representatives.

    My fellow Republicans are setting us up for failure as the younger generation of people who largely do not share the xenophobic and homophobic views of previous generations will feel unwelcome in our Party, will feel turned off by conservatism, will fail to hear the necessary message of economic and social libertarianism because we let a few DINOSAURS in the dying social conservative movement define out Party, tarring it with their off-message bigotry and intolerance.

    I feel embarrassed for my Party today. I can only beg forgiveness from that young up-and -coming generation and assure them that not all Republicans are so derelict in their commitment to or understanding of liberty and equality under the Law.

    There are many upstanding, creative, and productive businesspeople in the fine State of Indiana who also just happen to be homosexual. I hope they will not decide to leave us over this nonsensical election year farce that has been concocted pitting the prejudices of some useful idiots against a convenient boogeyman. I hope they know that the ignorance of a few does not define the people of Indiana or the entirety of the Republican Party.

  9. Wendy better get ready for the biggest political fight in her young political career. The gay community shall unite against her in her next re-election bid if she votes against us.

    • The gay community will unite and vote against her regardless of how she votes. The glbt is part of that 47% the republicans will probably not get in the foreseeable future. I don’t care who marries who or what but to imply that her vote will make a difference about how they vote is untrue.

  10. Wasn’t that Tomes guy a truck driver before he became State Senator? Does anybody know his educational background? He sound so uninformed when he talks.

  11. Right Wing Indiana legislators are about to make fools of themselves. The Supreme Court is going to overturn their civil rights violations. Equal Protection Under Law – for ALL of us – not only heterosexuals. Or at least that’s the way our country was designed.

  12. Other than the two liberals, Riecken and Becker, the other representatives are going to give the citizens a choice in this matter.

    Senator Tomes seems to be right on course with the will of his constituents, as usual. He, unlike the writer of the article and most of the posters on here, isn’t afraid to have the people exercise their right to self-govern.

    I will remind those who are so bitterly ashamed of Indiana, in these great United States, you are free to move to any other state where you will be more happy, happy, happy.

  13. I have lived in Texas, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Indiana. Except for Mississippi I have heard the “N” word used more here than almost anywhere else. I attended the Meet Your Legislator meeting and marvel that these people could be elected to office…then I remember I am living in Indiana “The Middle Finger of the South”. The arguments I heard for this amendment are the same arguments used prior to civil rights against African Americans. Be careful my friends the “gay” just may rub off.

  14. “…if you wonder why Indiana is often thought to be filled with knumbskulls more reminiscent of the “Old South”…”

    Since it’s now stylish to call people with different opinions “knumbskulls , Knucklehead 29 other states have already added a definition of marriage to their constitutions .

    We are only one of four that hasn’t. We use to be one of five until the court decided the issue for New Mexico because they had the least defined marriage ordinance.

    The proper way for this issue to be addressed is for a constitutional referendum and let the courts decide the constitutionality of it.

    The problem is that issue is so driven by emotions, prejudice and marketing tactics on both sides that there is barely a clear head in the room on either side.

    Calling people numskulls, bigots, and casting disparaging questions on the motivations of elected officials is not reasonable nor objective.

  15. To the Editor: I see you have again opted to leave the racist screeds of “al sharpie” up, even though you take down things that you think might hurt the feelings of those who decide to run for office.
    Is the CCO endorsing clear racial hatred?

    • We do not endorse any hatred. The posts that you refer to have not expressed any hatred or made any threats. If they do we will take them down. There are plenty of other posts expressing distaste for others opinions that are mean that we leave up too. We try to allow open expression up to the point of direct threats. We do not endorse that posters manner of spelling but will allow the posts unless they make direct threats.

      • Criticizing Teddy Stucki’s candidacy and choice of a picture didn’t, either. I don’t recall who posted it, but it was taken down though because it was “insulting.”
        I am deeply insulted by “al sharpie’s” ignorant, mocking posts.

    • If you could just censor everyone that disagrees with the bigoted posts of LKB, Editor, perhaps she would stay on the C&P site. Are you endorsing her clear hatred of anyone who disagrees with her?

      • Again, we do not endorse anyone’s posts by allowing them to stay, nor do we endorse any hatred at all. We want to provide an open forum where people can have discussions on the topics in our articles. Some will be mean, some will try to be funny, and others are overly serious. Direct threats or running off topic are the reasons we remove posts.

        • The ones you took down about that Stucki fella were not threats or off topic.

          • Sometimes I forget the true bias here, because they are, for the most part very open. If the continued, hateful, slurring of a racial minority isn’t threatening to that minority, I don’t understand what is.

    • Jeez, have you ever heard Al Sharpton speak. That poster does a pretty good job of putting Sharpton’s words onto paper exactly the way he says them.

    • I say leave the Sharpie’s comments up. Let the world see his ignorance and bigotry.

  16. I voted for every republican now in office that was in my district. I don’t care one way or the other about gay issues, the same as they don’t care about what I think is important. The 1st/2nd amendment, RTW, school vouchers, family and tax are important to me. I vote for candidates who support these. Democrats do not. Other people vote republican for other reasons, such as opposition to gay marriage. That’s the way the system works. I did support Clinton and his signature on NAFTA. Clinton was a great president when he was given adult supervision by a republican congress.

  17. Letter I sent Wendy. Intelligent responses would be appreciated. calling me a bigot will be ignored.

    Wendy, I read in the CCO that you are undecided on the bill commonly referred to as HJR6 concerning adding a definition of marriage to our constitution. I would like to encourage you to support this amendment for these reasons.

    The proper and legal way to address this issue is by constitutional amendment and let the courts decide the constitutionality.

    Twenty-nine states have constitutionally defined marriage as between one man and one woman. We are only one of four who have not enacted same sex marriage or constitutionally defined it. Without this definition the issue will be decide by the courts as it was recently decided in New Mexico.

    Without the amendment businesses and churches will be open to discrimination law suits for declining service to same sex couples. These suits are already occurring in other states.

    This amendment recognizes the unique attribute of heterosexual procreation but is not a religious, philosophical, nor scientific statement against other non traditional unions.

    This amendment no more banns homosexual marriage than it banns polygamy or cohabitation. It would be unconstitutional if it did.

    This amendment does not prevent the legislator from correcting laws that might be punitive to non-traditional lifestyles or creating laws that would address their concerns.

    This amendment does not prohibit same sex marriage ceremonies or take away any rights or privileges already enjoyed by non traditional unions.

    • Nope you’re not a bigot.

      You just discriminate like a bigot.

      You use the same strategies and tactics as bigots have
      for centuries.

      You couch and cloud your arguments in religious nonsense and hypocrisy like bigots have done for centuries.

      You try tell us that up is down, and down is up when it suits your agenda just like bigots have done for centuries

      You hide behind states rights and referendums just like the racists, segregationsists, bigots and their prejudice ilk have done for centuries.

      You try every strawman, red herring, moving the goalposts, jump on the bandwagon, false dichotomy and just about every other logical fallacy you can name to rationlize and justify your discrminatory practices, just like a bigot would do.

      So no you’re not a bigot. Happy?

    • IE,
      Two points:
      1) The 29 states you have referred to often as having a “one man and one woman” marriage definition I believe passed these amendments several years ago when much more prejudice existed toward gblt individuals. Do you have dates on these specific states, and what is occurring there in regard to changing these amendments?

      2) The keynote of your stance seems to be “the unique attribute of heterosexual procreation”. Not all heterosexuals can procreate. This for me is where your argument falls flat. I could get into many side areas here such as world overpopulation and hunger, and young unmarried women having baby after baby to get more government support but procreation is not the reason to marry in most of the world today or even most of this country or this state. So why use it as a reason to define marriage? Some of the best parents I know are homosexual either raising kids from a failed “please the world” marriage and finally partnering with someone (also a great parent) who is their own sex, or partnering with someone for life and adopting a child who they both adore. We may all like to think of a world of “Father Knows Best” (that’s an old TV show for you younger people) and I fully believe that a two parent household is a great way to raise a child but why two heterosexual parents? Parents need to be there to support each other through the very difficult process of raising another human being. That said there are some great single parents. The world is not all as black and white as we used to see it.

      • Thanks for the reasonable response Martha.

        10 I do not have the dates for when all of these states, but this site will give you an idea.

        It appears that these amendments have been passed with in the last 10 years.

        2)That only heterosexuals can procreate is the unique factor, but it is not required that they must procreate. In the recent New Mexico ruling, procreation, or the lack the New Mexico law should a consideration of procreation, was the basis on which the court ruled to establish same sex marriage in New Mexico. So procreation is a consideration.

        I know many same sex couples who raise families and they are just as good of parents as heterosexuals. I can find no reason why they should not be able to adopt any more than a single parent or parents cohabiting.

        However, California has recently ruled that a child can have more than two legal parents. The natural father was made to share parental rights with the partner of the child’s lesbian lover. I see that as an issue they will live to regret when step parents are being granted the status as the natural parent.

  18. The amendment was crafted by bigots for bigots. Depriving gay folks of the rights afforded to others is one of the last bigotries they can openly sport. And show it off they do, in the process telling more about themselves than their little minds could ever know about those whose lives they would like to control.

    To not call out bigotry when it is evident does a disservice to all of humanity.

    Neither Tomes nor McNamara have any business in the legislature. McNamara has a chance to redeem herself, I don’t think she’ll take it.

    Gail Reicken is one of the finest legislators this area has ever sent to Indianapolis. Seems sometimes the folks she helps are often her most committed detractors.

        • Yes, and my response was still more reasoned than theirs. But then I also noticed that your response is more concerned about my marking them ignored than trying to address the points I made. Why is that?

  19. HJR-3 House Judiciary committe adjourned without voting.

    They refused to answer questions from the LGBT community at the hearing.

    • Were they on trial? Was the LGBT denied a right to present their arguments just like everyone else was allowed their say? From city councils up legislating panels do not answer questions when taking public comments.

      • Project much?

        Religious zealots. cowards, bullies, bigots and fascists work and vote to take away the rights and freedoms of others.

        Winners and Champions work, fight and vote for the civil rights of others.

        • So was that a yes or no on the LGBT community being allowed to testify like everyone else?

          And what right is being taken away?

          If you want same sex marriage added to our constitution, then make the argument for it. But your anti religious and snide rants really are winning support that you don’t already have. But keep it up if you want to lose. Because if it went to referendum today you know the amendment would be passed by the voters.

          The problem is that you can’t make a reasonable argument for it other than you want the state to legitimize your same sex relationship so you have to run to the last refuge of a failed argument, insults.

          • I’m married and straight/heterosexual, but really that has nothing to do with it.

            • I got married at age 53 after having a vasectomy to a woman who had a hysterectomy. No procreation happening here and no one stood up to prevent our legal union. Life is great in the bedroom beyond the breeding age.

          • I really don’t care what your sexual preference is, but the way you trashed me I figure anything goes.

            I didn’t know a vasectomy was a gender change or meant that having one meant heterosexuals were not the only combination that were able to procreate.

            But maybe we just need an amendment that says only those capable of procreation qualify for marriage and dissolve any union that can not or will not procreate. I think that would be a lot better than just recognizing that procreation is unique to heterosexuals.

            But if it’s not procreation, then why license any marriage at all or why license same sex unions and not all unions?

            You’ve done a lot of ranting, but I have yet to see you present a solid reason for not defining marriage or why same sex should have special consideration.

          • And Steve, I am still waiting for you to inform me if the LGBT community was allowed the same right to testify as those who support this amendment or if they should have been allowed special rights. You seem to be dodging that question.

          • Please explain how the argument that all Americans have the innate right to build a life, family, and legal marriage contract is “unreasonable.”
            Also, please explain why you think the rights of those Americans, who may not be like you, should have to get the approval of the voters in order to be allowed to enter into a type of contract that has traditionally been open to hetero-sexual couples.
            Last, but not least, why do you think you are more entitled to “life, liberty, and property” than any other decent, law-abiding citizen?

        • Very well put. Also, the former group will hide behind any reed, any thin wisp of an invented and discredited argument (ability to procreate for instance) to pretend they actually have a defensible position. They do not. They are unsurprisingly not shy about projecting their bigotry onto others. These folks long ago lost the ability to feel shame or humanity.

          • You do realize that calling people bigots is not a valid argument don’t you? You might beat me in a spelling bee, but you really never stand up well in actually discussions.

          • I am heartened to see that the committee did not vote on the bill today. I suspect it is the beginning of “tabling” it. I predict that it will only be brought to a vote if there are enough votes in the committee to keep it from going to the floor. I could be wrong, but I really think the sensible legislators will find a way to “kill the bill.”

    • They will likely report it out of committee to keep the liklihood of a primary challenge by some half-witted ‘Bagger at bay.

      They would like to send it to the Indiana voters, those that haven’t been disenfranchised anyway, to let them stamp it and Indiana with a big scarlet B. Maybe it would attract a higher class of bigots than we are currently saddled with. We’d have to build a fence with a pay gate to keep the immigration to manageable numbers.

      Procreation was never a mainstream argument against gay marriage. It was always only held by a small portion of one percent of the anti-equality folks. It remains a non-argument, existing solely to properly sort and identify those who persist in offering it.

    • Latent bigotry harms the cognitive senses.

      If procreation is not a consideration, then why did the court cite the lack of NM not demonstrating it as the main factor in their ruling? If a state that restricts close relative marriage is challenged could the court use the same argument they used in NM against that state?

      • Both the ability to procreate and the civil union/skim milk marriage argument were discussed during the DOMA oral arguments.

        They were both dismissed with mockery and scorn.

        Try to keep up.

        • Yes, and one of the reasons this issue has been so difficult is that court has been inconsistent in its rulings. As i said, procreation was a factor in its NM ruling.

          And if the court mocked and scorn an argument, then their decision was not without bias and should be struck down.

          • “And if the court mocked and scorn an argument, then their decision was not without bias and should be struck down.”

            You do understand that this statement makes no sense and does not relate to reality in any way, don’t you?

          • I know that I am a creative speller and freelance grammarian, but bogus on you can’t understand what I said.

            Courts that mock and scorn are biased and should have their rulings struck down. When I read the decision I didn’t see any mocking and scorning.

  20. I too am glad that there was no vote today. I hope it gets stuck in committee and dies there. I would be happy to send flowers for its demise but I think I will send a contribution to a local charity. And it will die, if not this round then in the near future. I just hate to see things get ugly in the mean time.

    • Would you want it to die in committee if he amendment was to add homosexual marriage to our constitution?

      I am fine with it dying in committee, but this issue is going to be decided in Indiana at some point and in some way. If we do not settle it, then a federal court will decide it for us.

      I would bet if it does die in committee we will have an activist challenge our marriage ordinance.

      If it does go to referendum, then the issue will likely pass and the courts will decide its constitutionality. That would be fine with me also no matter how the court decided because due process had its day.

      What I don’t want is law based more on feelings than reason or to be side swiped by an activist.

      Indiana is a battle ground for this issue because, as I have said, we are one of only four states without a constitutional definition of marriage and do not recognize same sex marriages.

      • Define “activist”. Maybe an activist decision is what is needed.

        Also I believe that you tend to be the one with feelings getting in the way of your thinking and you believe them to be logic.

        Please stop trying so hard on your comments here. We are never going to agree on the ultimate outcome that we want so lets put it to rest.

        • Why would we need an activist decision when we have a constitutional process?

          I have listed the reasons why I feel we need this amendment. You will not find my religious or philosophical views attached to them. If you objectively read the comments of those opposing this amendment, you will find few if any reasons given for the opposition except an ambiguous equality and that we are backwoods numskulls.

          If I am emotional, I am emotional for the way the issue is being decided not for any views concerning homosexuality. The real threat I see is not my homosexual neighbors being married threatening my marriage, it wouldn’t, but the threat is writing laws based on emotion and by court decrees.

          If my way of thinking is not logical, then please address it. I put my thoughts forward and asked for reasonable comments. You were the only one that gave a reasonable reply. Mostly I got snide comments and called a bigot which is all to common.

          I won’t stop trying so hard. We don’t have to agree on the outcome or change each others’ minds. What we need is to understand one another, learn from one another, and remember that there are real people on the other side of any issue.

          When we consider what the other person is saying, then we must consider our views and it helps us refine or change our views. One thing I hope is that my arguing this issue will help other Christians think about their approach and views. To many attach God to their personal views and are more driven by their emotions than sound theology. Telling people they are going to hell because they are homosexuals is neither true nor helpful.

          • IE,
            I think your response above contains a disconnect. You at one point say that there is no religious reasoning attached to your argument, and then later you state that by you stating your views you hope to “help other Christians think about their approach and views.” By those two statements it would indicate to me that the Christian religion forms the basis for your arguments.

            I will tell that I am not religious. I believe myself to be ethical, moral, and loving of the earth and all life, but I am not a Christian or a Hindu, or a Jew or a Buddhist etc etc etc. My total belief as far as this amendment is concerned has to do with fairness to all individuals, equality under the law, and respect for each individual’s right to love another human being as they chose. I have heard no sound solid reason in all these posts which tell me why there should be a difference made in straight and gay marriages. Procreation is not a solid reason for that. It is a convenient excuse.

            Individual, personal rights are guaranteed by the federal government and the growth of the interpretation of this guarantee has been expanded over time from this country’s birth until now. It was not that long ago that women and children were considered property. A woman could not own property in a marriage. A women could be institutionalized by the word of her husband. She could not vote less than 100 years ago. We are all too familiar with the history of blacks and their treatment over time, some of which still lingers today. In our lifetimes mixed black/white marriages were outlawed in many states.

            I am stating all this because there is no difference between these examples and what this amendment attempts to do in Indiana to gblt people. I do not care what other states did or are doing or how they interpret their laws. In the end, Indiana has to be honorable to its citizens, all of them. And it has to, as it should, stand up to federal court scrutiny. Indiana has to do what is right not what is popular with some groups, or some faiths.

            I know I have mentioned my mom before but I will end with mentioning her again because of my admiration for her love for all people. She, like you, went to church and believed strongly in god which I respected. But apparently her church was a more mellow church open to change and hope for societal betterment because passing this marriage amendment would have been a no-brainer to her. Of course she would have welcomed the idea and maybe even thrown a party for the wedding of a friend.

          • There is no disconnect Martha. Christians need to learn to debate this issue on its merits rather than their theological opinion, which often is more their emotional view than solid theology.

            I like Mark Driscoll’s explanation.


            I think you’re a person of good character and intelligent. Just keep in mind that terrorist think they are ethical also.

            We have covered some of these points several times and understand one another’s views.

            I’m sure your mother was a kind person because you are. you really don’t know my church, nor I your mother’s, so her church may or may not be more mellow. But a church needs to be Biblical above all else.

            No matter how much a no brainer this issue would be for her, I still stick by what I say. The constitutional way to address this issue is by an amendment needs and let the courts decide if it is constitutional. For me that’s a no brainer.

  21. One of the repeated lines the TPer’s love to spout is how much they respect the constitution.

    Well let’s look at their illustrious track record.

    1) Mourdock sues over Chrysler bankruptcy:

    The Second Circuit Court of appeals rules unanimously 3-0
    2 conservative 1 liberal judge that Mourdock’s case is without merti ON ALL COUNTS.

    SCOTUS unanimously refuses to take his case on the grounds it is frivolous, which it was, since Mourdock is suing to get back less than he was offered!


    Defunding Planned Parenthood

    Conservative, Bush II nominated, Justice Diana Sykes strikes down the law. SCOTUS again refuse to hear the case on appeal


    Affordable care act. Indiana once again jumps on the hate Obama bandwagon and loses.


    Hey let’s drug test Welfare applicants the baggers declared!! Tbag favorite Rick Scott agreed.

    Another W the lesser appointed judge struck it down.


    Ohh here’s an oldie but goodie Tbag idea Let’s arrest brown people without a warrant!!

    Struck down by a Reagan appointed judge.


    Hey Let’s erect 31 6ft crosses on public property!!

    Yep you guessed struck down another conservative justice




  22. And at one time the court ruled blacks were less than human and could be property of another man.

    Liberals lose in court also. Do they hate the constitution?

    Your disjointed logic only proves that we are a country of laws the court has the final say until another judge changes it.

    I am more concerned about a DOJ that picks and chooses which laws it will support and has granted legal status to marriages that have no legal status in the state. If we keep going with this OWS style of the DOJ creating laws we won’t need legislators or judges.

    BTW, I am concerned for our constitution when painted horses have more constitution rights than 31 crosses. But I don’t expect you to grasp why that is a problem.

    • Plastic horses and plastic crosses are equal in the eyes of the law. Neither have any rights period. Neither do staplers, copper wire, or apples.

  23. All I hear in these comments from the extreme, disgusting and intolerant right is whining, whining, whining over losing the Constitutional case on the same-sex marriage issue. And worse…complaints and more whining and insecurity about defending the bigotry of such a position. (Emotion ruling the day? Try losing the ruling in the Supreme Court.) The same whining and preposterous moral claims were heard from these same people on interracial marriage and interfaith marriage. They claimed then, and amusingly now, that somehow their bigoted morality is above the nation’s. A simple straightforward wrong is being corrected. This gives me faith there is real justice in America.

    And while not final yet, SCOTUS is clearly resigned (Scalia included), as are all States, that same sex marriage has been identified as a Constitutional right. What remains in State legislative work recognizing same-sex marriage is merely mopping up at this point. Any advocacy for “votes to violate peoples Constitutional rights” in States like Indiana are not only transparent efforts at further violation of citizen rights, they are Constitutionally and legally invalid.

    Still I know, some will be nicely proud and loud being declared wrong.

Comments are closed.