Compiled by the staff of www.theindianalawer.com
Retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard will moderate a debate at Franklin College Jan. 13 on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Jane Henegar, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana, will argue against the proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex-marriage in Indiana. Curt Smith, president of Indiana Family Institute, will advocate for the amendment.
“The debate at Franklin College about the proposed same-sex marriage amendment will give the people of Indiana a better understanding of this contentious issue. Both sides deserve a fair hearing and, as moderator, I want to make sure that they receive one,†Shepard said in a news release from the college.  Organizers say the involvement of Shepard, Henegar and Smith will guarantee the debate will inform rather than inflame.
“Given that the definition of marriage has become controversial, it is important the Legislature allow Hoosiers to decide this question for ourselves. Making such a choice wisely requires an informed citizenry, which I trust this debate will foster,†Smith said.
The hour-long debate will be held at 7 p.m. in the Branigin Room of the Napolitan Student Center on campus. It is free and open to the public. Those who cannot attend may listen to a live broadcast on WFCI 89.5 FM.
The Indiana General Assembly is expected to consider the amendment outlined in House Joint Resolution 6 this session. State legislators have been grappling privately with the proposed amendment banning marriage between two people of the same gender. Their concern is the second sentence of the amendment which some view as too broad and possibly removing legal protections from unmarried heterosexual couples.
There are questions as to whether the amendment can be approved and put before voters in November if the language is altered in any way during the 2014 session.
Welcome to 2014. Love is love.
Is the state obligated to license love? If it is, then why draw the line at two not closely related? Is it equal to tax those who chose not to secure this love license differently?
Are you trying to do away with the institution of marriage?? Yes, the state is obligated to license married love. It is further obligated not to discriminate on basis of sexual orientation.
I think you are probably right about not limiting the contract to two people.
It is absolutely fair to tax differently based on a choice of legal status!
I am not the one trying to change marriage laws, and no, the state is not obligated to license love. It will issue a license to those who qualify, but love is not a state qualification.
This issue is not about discrimination, but it will create more discrimination if we change the qualifications to include homosexuals based on nothing more than their homosexuality.
It is not fair to tax differently because someone does not choose state sanctioning of his or her relationships. To do so is to punish people by the tax code into conformance and that is tyrannical.
If heterosexual marriage is no longer tolerable in our culture, then the next best solution is to fix the punitive tax codes and no longer issue a marriage license.
Nobody is saying anything about not tolerating hetero-sexual marriages! Did you bump your head? Are you hearing voices? I’m worried about you!
LKB, my sanity challenged mentality is natural and in no way the result of accident nor abuse. 🙂
While I am comfortably numb, many are calling for the government to get out of the marriage business. unless your meds are better than mine, I know you have heard that argued.
There is no amendment to ban homosexual marriage, that is unconstitutional. How will there be a fair debate when we can’t even frame the issue without a bias?
You’re right, it would be un-Constitutional. That is not, however, keeping the more backward among us from trying to pass one.
Backwards? We are only one of four states that have not constitutionally defined marriage or had same sex marriage legalized. some of the state that recognize same sex marriage while denying to other non traditional unions have had it forced on them by court decree because they had not constitutionally defined marriage.
But rather than relying on a follow the heard mentality, would it not be better to address the issue in a way that is thoughtful and finds a solution that works for all?
It wouldn’t matter if they had defined marriage or not. Look what happened in Utah. Their amendment is much like the one proposed by Indiana. They are going to appeal to SCOTUS and the question will be settled. Why does IN need more legal costs?
Justice Scalia speaks the truth!
IE attempts tell the world its raining while he —-es down the leg of every Hoosier.
Careful Brains. You might be accused of misrepresenting your moniker. Mindless insults tells everyone that you can’t engage on the issue.
The states do have the right to define marriage, but they still have to do it in in a way that doesn’t violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Further you can’t take away people’s civil and constitutional rights via a yea/nay public referendum. (Eye roll) This “will of the people” stuff is crapola. Good grief that would effectively be amending the constitution via referendum!
AND YES the courts are doing EXACTLY what they’re supposed to do, protecting the rights of the minority from the majority. And YES even if it is prtecting only ONE person. And NO that is NOT legislating from the bench it is enforcing the constitution! Either we’re all equal and free or none of us are.
A Reagan appointed judge slapped down the crosses in Evansville, a Bush the Elder appointed judge struck down the NDAA surviellance program with a scathing rebuke to the government and W the Lesser appointed judge slapped the snot out of florida’s drug testing. When will these TPer’s get the message that they are WAY out of line?
Evidently the TPer’s were in a coma during HS civics class just like during W the lessers reign or else they like cherry picking the constitution just like the do that bronze age christian folklore guide.
One final note:
“Religious organizations must obey generally appplicable laws to do otherwise would lead to anarchy, with each man becoming a law into himself” Antonin Scalia, majority opinion Employment Division vs Smtih.
You TPer’s should look forward to defeat on both the gay marriage issue and the birth control mandate.
+1!! Beautifully stated, Brains.
Brains, quit rolling your eyes or your face will freeze that way. It take a referendum to change our constitution.
You might impress LKB by clinging to your “it’s the TPers” defense, but stereotyping does not impress me as a reasonable argument.
So are you saying that religious organizations should be forced to marry homosexuals?
No, IE, nobody is saying that. If you don’t believe in same sex marriage, don’t same sex marry. You keep confusing “marriage” (a legal contract) with “wedding” (a ceremony, sometimes religious). The terms are not interchangeable.
The bakery didn’t have to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, so why would a church be forced to perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple?
I know the difference between a license and a ceremony. Seems like you’re the one confused. The baker lost the suit.
Comments are closed.