Ind. Senate OKs ban on same-sex marriage

Jan 29, 2010 Full story: www.thestarpress.com 49

The Indiana Senate revived a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages Thursday, approving the measure and sending it to the House, where it's likely to meet a quick death.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“TMA&CRR One Love One Marriage ”

Since: Sep 09

port orange

#1 Jan 29, 2010
the courts there should over turn the law now before its to late...
Tired Of HATRED

Indianapolis, IN

#2 Jan 29, 2010
The judges at the local level in Indiana are all elected positions, therefore, these judges tend to rule in the direction of which side has the larger number of votes to keep them in their judge positions on issues like this. Needless to say, Indiana is rather conservative in social thinking, so there is NO WAY any local state judge who has been voted into their jobs as judge will ever rule against what the conservative voting block wants.

Also note that Indiana has a very deep historical link to the KKK and it's leadership. D.C. Stevens was the Indiana Klan leader in the 1920's. He claimed to be the law of Indiana and even thought that he would get away with murdering his mistress because of his influence and blackmail articles he had on the Indiana elected officials. Alas, he was convicted and he did bring about the downfall of many Indiana elected officials. However, Indiana, unfortunately, still has a very conservative, and at times "Klanish", mentality.

Also note this, in order for this to get to a ballot for the people of Indiana to vote on it, it has to be passed by both the State Senate and House by 2 consectutive Senates and Houses, in a row. So, what that means here is that it has to pass twice by two different elected officials of the Senate and House consectutively. Then and only then can it be put on the ballot for the general population to vote yea or nay on. So far, this has never been able to pass the 2 consective senate and house votes to be put on the ballot.

Sorry so long, but wanted to let you in on how things are done here in Indiana and a little bit of our history too so that you understand why the courts here are not really an option, it would need to be fought at the federal level to even be really heard here in Indiana.

OregonJeff

Portland, OR

#3 Jan 29, 2010
I am so glad to be from Indiana. The operative word is FROM. Every time I go back I am stunned at how far behind in everything regarding anything outside a myopic and intensely regressive world view so many (not all!) people remain back there. No wonder derisive east and west coasters still call the Midwest the "fly-over"...and with attitudes like the state senate just exposed Indiana will stay a backwards, back-water that I can barely stand to visit let alone ever think of as a place to move my business or family. Sorry Mom in IN.
Fitz

Detroit, MI

#4 Jan 29, 2010
Terriic - perhaps it will be 32 straight wins for marriage by the time SCOTUS gets to rule.

Every time we progress with marriage amendments we put the enemies of the family up to public exposure.

Now the House has to go on record as being against marriage, this allows more pro-family candidates to win victory.

Keep the pressure up - good job Indiana.

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

#5 Jan 29, 2010
Fitz wrote:
Terriic - perhaps it will be 32 straight wins for marriage by the time SCOTUS gets to rule.
Every time we progress with marriage amendments we put the enemies of the family up to public exposure.
Now the House has to go on record as being against marriage, this allows more pro-family candidates to win victory.
Keep the pressure up - good job Indiana.
Still living in denial, Fitz?

Did you read how the bill is likely to die a quick death in the Indiana House?

Oh, and you do know that we homosexuals have families?

Eric

“Down To Earth”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#6 Jan 29, 2010
Pfft, we've been through this before. Miller and his band of zealots always get shot down.

Marriage will be legal everywhere before this even sees the light of day.
Fitz

Detroit, MI

#7 Jan 29, 2010
gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
Still living in denial, Fitz?
Did you read how the bill is likely to die a quick death in the Indiana House?
Oh, and you do know that we homosexuals have families?
Eric
Well Eric, I have been following this closely...It was supposed to die in committee... Now it gets to go to the floor & house members will have to go on record.

So we have won in 31 states and are keeping the pressure in those Sttaes that have yet to adopt Constiutional Amendments.

This is democracy in action. The more people vote on this issue the more they will be disinfaranchised if SCOTUS denies the will of the people..

Health Care was seen as a done deal and suddenly its dead as a dorenail with one election .

New Jersey, Maine, New York were all supposed to have same-sex "marriage" by now - yet these very very Blue states rejected it by larger margins than anyone expected...

I think your playing checkers while I'm playing Chess... SCOTUS plays chess also.
OregonJeff

Portland, OR

#8 Jan 29, 2010
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Eric, I have been following this closely...It was supposed to die in committee... Now it gets to go to the floor & house members will have to go on record.
So we have won in 31 states and are keeping the pressure in those Sttaes that have yet to adopt Constiutional Amendments.
This is democracy in action. The more people vote on this issue the more they will be disinfaranchised if SCOTUS denies the will of the people..
Health Care was seen as a done deal and suddenly its dead as a dorenail with one election .
New Jersey, Maine, New York were all supposed to have same-sex "marriage" by now - yet these very very Blue states rejected it by larger margins than anyone expected...
I think your playing checkers while I'm playing Chess... SCOTUS plays chess also.
Judging by your spelling and grammar you should not be putting down the mental capacity of other posters...doesn't look good buddy...just a pointer.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#9 Jan 29, 2010
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Eric, I have been following this closely...It was supposed to die in committee... Now it gets to go to the floor & house members will have to go on record.
So we have won in 31 states and are keeping the pressure in those Sttaes that have yet to adopt Constiutional Amendments.
This is democracy in action. The more people vote on this issue the more they will be disinfaranchised if SCOTUS denies the will of the people..
Health Care was seen as a done deal and suddenly its dead as a dorenail with one election .
New Jersey, Maine, New York were all supposed to have same-sex "marriage" by now - yet these very very Blue states rejected it by larger margins than anyone expected...
I think your playing checkers while I'm playing Chess... SCOTUS plays chess also.
And I think that this is an attempt to circumvent the system of Government we have in this country. In Indiana, SSM is already illegal. These Constitutional Amendments make it plain that the anti-gay folks KNOW these laws are subject to be overturned BECAUSE they ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! After all, why do you need a law to make something illegal that is ALREADY ILLEGAL?

Beat the "activist judge" drum all you want, but more and more people see just how hypocritical your groups are every time you run back to these same judges and want "EXTRA" protection.

This IS all about forcing YOUR lifestyle onto other people and denying them equal protection under the law. It IS a civil rights issue.
The Virgin Queen

Miami, FL

#10 Jan 29, 2010
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And I think that this is an attempt to circumvent the system of Government we have in this country. In Indiana, SSM is already illegal. These Constitutional Amendments make it plain that the anti-gay folks KNOW these laws are subject to be overturned BECAUSE they ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! After all, why do you need a law to make something illegal that is ALREADY ILLEGAL?
Beat the "activist judge" drum all you want, but more and more people see just how hypocritical your groups are every time you run back to these same judges and want "EXTRA" protection.
This IS all about forcing YOUR lifestyle onto other people and denying them equal protection under the law. It IS a civil rights issue.
Poor David. You'll be okay. Just don't move to Indiana.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#11 Jan 29, 2010
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Eric, I have been following this closely...It was supposed to die in committee... Now it gets to go to the floor & house members will have to go on record.
So we have won in 31 states and are keeping the pressure in those Sttaes that have yet to adopt Constiutional Amendments.
This is democracy in action. The more people vote on this issue the more they will be disinfaranchised if SCOTUS denies the will of the people..
Health Care was seen as a done deal and suddenly its dead as a dorenail with one election .
New Jersey, Maine, New York were all supposed to have same-sex "marriage" by now - yet these very very Blue states rejected it by larger margins than anyone expected...
I think your playing checkers while I'm playing Chess... SCOTUS plays chess also.
And as for that sacred mantra, "the will of the people" let's look at that one a little closer shall we? "The will of the people" in some cases involves being free to use illegal drugs. Why aren't you thumping your chest in outrage over that? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You want to talk "slippery slope"? What's next of the shopping list.

And isn't it funny that you talk about activist judges and then invoke SCOTUS in the same breath? You aren't playing chess, you're using tiddly winks.
John E

Batavia, NY

#12 Jan 29, 2010
The Virgin Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor David. You'll be okay. Just don't move to Indiana.
Oh just give it up sweet cheeks. You've overposted in here for months. No one even cares what you have to say anymore. You've lost all credibility as a celibate gay man who hates other gays for being open and honest about who they are and how God made them. You're just old now.

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

#13 Jan 29, 2010
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Eric, I have been following this closely...It was supposed to die in committee... Now it gets to go to the floor & house members will have to go on record.
So we have won in 31 states and are keeping the pressure in those Sttaes that have yet to adopt Constiutional Amendments.
This is democracy in action. The more people vote on this issue the more they will be disinfaranchised if SCOTUS denies the will of the people..
Health Care was seen as a done deal and suddenly its dead as a dorenail with one election .
New Jersey, Maine, New York were all supposed to have same-sex "marriage" by now - yet these very very Blue states rejected it by larger margins than anyone expected...
I think your playing checkers while I'm playing Chess... SCOTUS plays chess also.
The word is "disEnfranchised" and no that's not true. No one is being denied the vote.

The "People" often have it wrong and one only need to review American History for that reality. Evidence? Women, Native Americans, Japanese internment, Blacks, Latinos, Chinese, Jews, Gays.

There are still places today that would segregate on the basis of race. You still think the "will of the people" should stand?!

If you and yours had put into Prop 8 Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Jews, the outcry would have been overwhelming. But hey, it's okay for you to discriminate against homosexuals. To you, they do not matter. It's okay to deny them basic humanity, civility and civil rights - so say "the people". The Constitution however, says otherwise.

Our Founders and Framers were very wise creating that document. They saw your prejudice then and foresaw that "the people" needed to be restrained. That's why we're also a "Republic".

Eric

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#14 Jan 29, 2010
The Virgin Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor David. You'll be okay. Just don't move to Indiana.
I'll be fine when the issue is addressed with honesty. Denying two adults equal protection under the law because of what sex each person is is supposed to be against the law.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#15 Jan 29, 2010
Oh and to Fitz: The "will of the people" has been clear every time the Indiana State House of Representatives kills this bill.

Spin that!
Fitz

Detroit, MI

#16 Jan 29, 2010
gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
The word is "disEnfranchised" and no that's not true. No one is being denied the vote.
The "People" often have it wrong and one only need to review American History for that reality. Evidence? Women, Native Americans, Japanese internment, Blacks, Latinos, Chinese, Jews, Gays.
There are still places today that would segregate on the basis of race. You still think the "will of the people" should stand?!
If you and yours had put into Prop 8 Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Jews, the outcry would have been overwhelming. But hey, it's okay for you to discriminate against homosexuals. To you, they do not matter. It's okay to deny them basic humanity, civility and civil rights - so say "the people". The Constitution however, says otherwise.
Our Founders and Framers were very wise creating that document. They saw your prejudice then and foresaw that "the people" needed to be restrained. That's why we're also a "Republic".
Eric
"Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings." 1

1- In re Marriage Cases, Washington App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J.(writing for the majority.)

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

#17 Jan 29, 2010
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
"Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings." 1
1- In re Marriage Cases, Washington App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J.(writing for the majority.)
That's not a Federal case dealing with Constitutional law.

Nice try.
Tired Of HATRED

Indianapolis, IN

#18 Jan 29, 2010
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Eric, I have been following this closely...It was supposed to die in committee... Now it gets to go to the floor & house members will have to go on record.
Ummm...this is NOT exactly true Fitz....It was in the SENATE JUDICIAL Committee...that SENATE Committee elected to put it on the SENATE FLOOR for a vote....Which only the SENATE SIDE voted in favor for....

Here is where you don't have your FACTS correct...The HOUSE side isn't even going to bring it up in any COMMITTEE to be heard, let alone have it debated on the HOUSE SIDE GENERAL FLOOR for debate, reading, or vote....

Evidently you HAVEN'T been following this that closely or you would have known that the HOUSE SIDE isn't even going to entertain it in a little committee nor on the HOUSE SIDE floor for voting...That is why even though the SENATE SIDE voted YES...The HOUSE SIDE isn't going to hear it at all...Therefore, it is a DEAD ATTEMPT even before it began...

This is an election year here in Indiana and this is the Republicans feeble attempt at trying to garner brownie points to get Replicans elected into the HOUSE SIDE to gain control of both sides again....They knew it wasn't going anywhere, just fear tactic brownie points was all...

Since: Mar 07

United States

#19 Jan 29, 2010
Fitz wrote:
Terriic - perhaps it will be 32 straight wins for marriage by the time SCOTUS gets to rule.
.........
You seem to be a little confused. That would be "defeats for marriage", since stopping people from marrying is the express purpose of such bans.

Lowering the number of good folks who might choose to marry can never be a win.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#20 Jan 29, 2010
Fitz wrote:
1- In re Marriage Cases, Washington App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J.(writing for the majority.)
As you may recall, McGuiness and the Court of Appeals majority was overruled by the Supreme Court of California in the In Re Marriage cases. Besides, the better written opinion was that by dissenting Judge, J. Kline:

As the majority rightly states,“whether California’s marriage laws infringe upon a fundamental right depends almost entirely on how that right is defined.”(Maj. opn., ante, at p. 23.) However, like the determination in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) 478 U.S. 186 (Bowers) repudiated by the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558 (Lawrence), the conclusion my colleagues reach is preordained by a false premise. Respondents are no more asserting a “right to same-sex marriage” than the
plaintiffs in Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez) and Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1 (Loving), were asserting a right to interracial marriage; or the plaintiff in Bowers was asserting a constitutional right of homosexuals to engage in sodomy. Respondents do not seek the establishment of a “new” constitutional right to serve their special interests, but rather the application of an established right to marry a person of
one’s choice; a right available to all that government cannot significantly restrict in the absence of compelling need. As in Bowers, the majority’s mischaracterization of the right asserted in this case “discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake.”(Lawrence, supra, 539 U.S. at pp. 566-567.)

The question at the center of this case is whether the reasons the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have deemed marriage a fundamental constitutional right are as applicable to same-sex couples as to couples consisting of members of the opposite sex. The majority’s indifference to those reasons effectively divests the marital relationship of its most constitutionally significant qualities and permits marriage to be defined instead by who it excludes. Though not its purpose, the
inescapable effect of the analysis the majority adopts is to diminish the humanity of the lesbians and gay men whose rights are defeated. The right to marry is “of fundamental importance for all individuals.”(Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) 434 U.S. 374, 384, italics added (Zablocki).) The exclusion of lesbians and gay men from this all-encompassing group denies them the individual autonomy and dignity that is embodied in the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice and the reason the right is so highly protected.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE: In re MARRIAGE CASES.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ellettsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Chad Armstrong Fri Mac 1
bad fathers (Jun '09) Dec 15 PRJ 4
School Uniforms for Martinsville! Yes! Dec 15 another parent 4
Tony Eads Dec 13 Lori 3
I think Lauren Spierer was setup. (Jun '11) Dec 12 useyourbrain 57
Meth Capital of Indiana? Dec 12 random 5
DUI I need off record Dec 4 expungement 2
Ellettsville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Ellettsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Ellettsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Ellettsville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:01 pm PST

NBC Sports 1:01PM
Cowboys' Murray listed as questionable for Colts - NBC Sports
ESPN 1:03 PM
Browns' Mingo fined $16,537 for hit on Dalton
NFL 1:47 PM
'Sound FX' spies Manziel's meeting with Marvin Lewis
Yahoo! Sports 2:09 PM
RT Eric Winston quickly settling in with Bengals
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Broncos vs. Bengals: TV Info, Spread, Injury Updates, Game Time and More