Ind. State Groups Affirm Opposition to Gay Marriage Ban

Dec 17, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

Indiana State University's faculty, staff and student groups have joined Indiana's growing collegiate opposition to the state's proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 18 of18
david traversa

Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

For me this clinches it regardless of the outcome .. Don't EVER hang back with the brutes .

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

It would be HUGE if a state as generally conservative as Indiana rejected a marriage ban.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

eJohn wrote:
It would be HUGE if a state as generally conservative as Indiana rejected a marriage ban.
A year ago, it would have been HUGE if ANY state had rejected a ban. One did on the same day three other states voted to instate marriage equality. That was tremendous.

I'm certainly not complacent, but I'm getting accustomed to great progress.

My prediction is for the Indiana legislature to soften the amendment, thereby killing it for 2014.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>....My prediction is for the Indiana legislature to soften the amendment, thereby killing it for 2014.
That's an interesting avenue I hadn't thought of. If the current legislature were to make any changes to the amendment, wouldn't that mean that it would have to be voted on and passed in yet another future legislative session before it could go to the voters? Thereby kicking it down the road another year or two?

I think this is another one where the forces of extreme hate, the forces that refuse to leave the ban at just "marriage", but insisted on including everything and anything and all the rest so as to inflict as much damage as possible on as many people as possible, have shot themselves in the foot. Now they've saddled themselves with one of the extreme bans that is both really difficult to defend in front of voters and really easy for opponents to attack.

Good!

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

Actually there was never a need for the Ban in the first place. See Indiana was writing it's Constitution about the same time as another Upstart Group was rebel rousing and pissing off all the others, The Mormons, and it was written into the Constitution that Only ONE man and ONE Woman would be recognized in Indiana. Flash Forward to Now when it's currently Interpreted as being one MAN and one WOMAN which bans same sex marriage.

Rejecting the Marriage ban is a PR campaign as there is ALREADY a marriage ban in the Indiana Constitution
If they want to impress me they need to remove the existing ban..
Cornelius

Anonymous Proxy

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pagan and Proud wrote:
If they want to impress me they need to remove the existing ban..
No one wants to impress you.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an interesting avenue I hadn't thought of. If the current legislature were to make any changes to the amendment, wouldn't that mean that it would have to be voted on and passed in yet another future legislative session before it could go to the voters? Thereby kicking it down the road another year or two?
I think this is another one where the forces of extreme hate, the forces that refuse to leave the ban at just "marriage", but insisted on including everything and anything and all the rest so as to inflict as much damage as possible on as many people as possible, have shot themselves in the foot. Now they've saddled themselves with one of the extreme bans that is both really difficult to defend in front of voters and really easy for opponents to attack.
Good!
As I have often pointed out, the Massachusetts DOMA amendment passed by the legislature in 2004 would have been passed by voters in 2006 if the homophobes hadn't overreached and scuttled it themselves. As it turned out, it gave our side enough time to turn 151 members of the 200 member legislature against the peoples initiative in 2007. And the people never got to vote.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 18, 2013
 
Pagan and Proud wrote:
Actually there was never a need for the Ban in the first place. See Indiana was writing it's Constitution about the same time as another Upstart Group was rebel rousing and pissing off all the others, The Mormons, and it was written into the Constitution that Only ONE man and ONE Woman would be recognized in Indiana. Flash Forward to Now when it's currently Interpreted as being one MAN and one WOMAN which bans same sex marriage.
Rejecting the Marriage ban is a PR campaign as there is ALREADY a marriage ban in the Indiana Constitution
If they want to impress me they need to remove the existing ban..
Huh?? If there's already a ban in the Indiana constitution, why hasn't anyone just said that? It seems like someone would have said something about it at some point before now....

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 19, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?? If there's already a ban in the Indiana constitution, why hasn't anyone just said that? It seems like someone would have said something about it at some point before now....
Honestly what you're experiencing in Indiana is the Teapublicans in action. We have a Holy Roller Governor who was in congress for several years, he never authored a single bill on his own although he has probably signed on to existing legislation written by others, pushed a rebate in state taxes as a campaign promise that his republican cronies slapped down once he got in to office, all he's really done since then is show up for Photo Opportunities. This group of Teapublicans want to place a SECOND ban in the state constitution just in case the first one isn't strong enough or doesn't survive a constitutional challenge. I do remember reading somewhere that the timing of when it (the Original ban) was written, it wasn't being against Gays as being against Polygamy as it states they will only recognize One man and One woman as being married.
Well, at least it's better than Alabama.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

david traversa wrote:
For me this clinches it regardless of the outcome .. Don't EVER hang back with the brutes .
Why does someone in Argentina care what goes on in Indiana ?!

Don't you have any problems there to worry about ???

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pagan and Proud wrote:
Actually there was never a need for the Ban in the first place. See Indiana was writing it's Constitution about the same time as another Upstart Group was rebel rousing and pissing off all the others, The Mormons, and it was written into the Constitution that Only ONE man and ONE Woman would be recognized in Indiana. Flash Forward to Now when it's currently Interpreted as being one MAN and one WOMAN which bans same sex marriage.
Rejecting the Marriage ban is a PR campaign as there is ALREADY a marriage ban in the Indiana Constitution
If they want to impress me they need to remove the existing ban..
It's "rabble rousing". Not "rebel rousing". Indiana isn't in the Confederacy.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 20, 2013
 
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's "rabble rousing". Not "rebel rousing". Indiana isn't in the Confederacy.
They Vote as if they are in the Confederacy, they ACT as though they are/were in the Confederacy, they are even trying to put a SECOND Same sex marriage ban in the Indiana Constitution just in case one fails. Must be horrible, to have such gross stupidity as a calling card for the ideological group that YOU support.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>They Vote as if they are in the Confederacy, they ACT as though they are/were in the Confederacy, they are even trying to put a SECOND Same sex marriage ban in the Indiana Constitution just in case one fails. Must be horrible, to have such gross stupidity as a calling card for the ideological group that YOU support.
Whatever group is doing that, I don't support. What makes you think I would support that ?!

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 20, 2013
 
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever group is doing that, I don't support. What makes you think I would support that ?!
Because I've read your posts. The ones where you bash democrats and liberals, that puts you conservative and republican, which is......The Confederacy.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>Because I've read your posts. The ones where you bash democrats and liberals, that puts you conservative and republican, which is......The Confederacy.
WOW ! are YOU F**K*D UP ! Just because I HATE Democrats and liberals does not mean I'm a conservative and\or a Republican. I'm not. I'm a Libertarian.

And it was the DEMOCRATS who founded the Confederacy and insisted on keeping black Americans in slavery. It was the REPUBLICANS who freed the slaves, and went to war with the Confederacy against the TREASONOUS Democrats.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW ! are YOU F**K*D UP ! Just because I HATE Democrats and liberals does not mean I'm a conservative and\or a Republican. I'm not. I'm a Libertarian.
And it was the DEMOCRATS who founded the Confederacy and insisted on keeping black Americans in slavery. It was the REPUBLICANS who freed the slaves, and went to war with the Confederacy against the TREASONOUS Democrats.
Let's hear from everyone (besides Foxy) who belives that

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 21, 2013
 
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW ! are YOU F**K*D UP ! Just because I HATE Democrats and liberals does not mean I'm a conservative and\or a Republican. I'm not. I'm a Libertarian.
And it was the DEMOCRATS who founded the Confederacy and insisted on keeping black Americans in slavery. It was the REPUBLICANS who freed the slaves, and went to war with the Confederacy against the TREASONOUS Democrats.
Sure it does. Libertarians are nothing but Republican Lite, the same conservative claptrap with only Half the bigotry of the original source. The fact that you aren't bright enough to understand that Both parties have done a complete 180 degree turn from what they USED to be says far more about you than you believe, the fact that you keep presenting the LIES as truth shows that you're libertarian in name only, you're actually a Tea Party Republican.
The only one F***** Up here is you, Daniel from Long Island.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text> Sure it does. Libertarians are nothing but Republican Lite, the same conservative claptrap with only Half the bigotry of the original source. The fact that you aren't bright enough to understand that Both parties have done a complete 180 degree turn from what they USED to be says far more about you than you believe, the fact that you keep presenting the LIES as truth shows that you're libertarian in name only, you're actually a Tea Party Republican.
The only one F***** Up here is you, Daniel from Long Island.
There are basically two types of libertarians in this world: One belives in their own individual liberty, and that of everyone who thinks like them. Any other ideas infringe on their own individual liberty and that of their friends. The other type have the correct answers for an ideal world that is as different from the one we live in as Pluto is from Earth. Their failure to recognize the inevitability of human flaws prevents them from using government to remedy those flaws.

Neither type of libertarian argument should be heeded.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 18 of18
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Indiana State University Discussions

Search the Indiana State University Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Is outdoor education the way of the future? Feb '14 Delta Juliet Whisky 12
Statue of Larry Bird erected on ISU campus Nov '13 Walter Cronkite 22
Kopinski is Toll Road, Fort Wayne posts area co... (Aug '13) Aug '13 Harleyblb 1
Training exercise for local fire dept. (Jul '13) Jul '13 Insider 2
ISU opens interactive exhibit of the Bayh family (May '13) Jun '13 j quote 8
Police arrest three people after alleged incide... (Feb '13) Feb '13 Tim 21
ISU students working on unmanned drones (Feb '13) Feb '13 sin 3
•••
•••
•••
•••