Indianapolis leaders take stand against gay marriage ban

Nov 11, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Indianapolis Star

Indianapolis city leaders tonight will officially add their voices to the debate over Indiana's proposed same-sex marriage ban.

Comments
21 - 40 of 120 Comments Last updated Jan 15, 2014

Since: Dec 06

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

3

Oh you are wrong. Just as the gays wants their "right" to marry, follow comes the people who believes in Polygamy. Why should those that believe in more then one spouse, be denied their rights if we expand marriage to include gays? Are they any less of a citizen the the rest? If we give the "right" to marry whoever you want, why not open the door all the way?
OkieDarren wrote:
<quoted text>
Realizing that they're losing their battle to keep Jim Crow laws in effect, the bigots behind anti-gay extremism are left with the desperation tactic of pretending marriage equality has anything to do at all with polygamy. It doesn't. But, if you're fascinated by the topic, by all means go find yourself a polygamy board. It's not related, in any way, to the topic of discussion here.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DavidM wrote:
HJR 6
Next
<quoted text>
The Morrill Act stands. With SSM just around the corner nobody is going to open the door to its repeal either.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DavidM wrote:
Oh you are wrong. Just as the gays wants their "right" to marry, follow comes the people who believes in Polygamy. Why should those that believe in more then one spouse, be denied their rights if we expand marriage to include gays? Are they any less of a citizen the the rest? If we give the "right" to marry whoever you want, why not open the door all the way?
<quoted text>
Gays already have the right to marry. Nobody except for people from Saudi Arabia, for example, have the right to practice polygamy.

1. Immigration

2. Population control

3. Social constraints

4. Orderly succession

5. Fairness to women and children

6. The Morrill Act
Straight Sh00ter

Topeka, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Then go shoot yourself.
You must be gay.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hey, aren't you and that dumb Blonde Queen with a dick, supposed to be on your way to Hawaii? You can get married now!! Happy honeymoon!!

“Romans 13: 8-10”

Since: Feb 08

Oklahoma City, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

DavidM wrote:
Oh you are wrong. Just as the gays wants their "right" to marry, follow comes the people who believes in Polygamy. Why should those that believe in more then one spouse, be denied their rights if we expand marriage to include gays? Are they any less of a citizen the the rest? If we give the "right" to marry whoever you want, why not open the door all the way?
<quoted text>
The two are not remotely comparable, this is just a sleazy lie from bigots trying any desperate stunt to stop the runaway train of justice and equality.
And guess what, idiot...laws against polygamy do not violate anyone's right to marry. It's a totally seperate, unrelated subject. Go talk about it on the polygamy board, it's not part of this debate at all. But you obviously ran out of any excuse to oppose marriage equality, so this pathetic flailing is all you have left.

“Romans 13: 8-10”

Since: Feb 08

Oklahoma City, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays already have the right to marry. Nobody except for people from Saudi Arabia, for example, have the right to practice polygamy.
1. Immigration
2. Population control
3. Social constraints
4. Orderly succession
5. Fairness to women and children
6. The Morrill Act
In most of the US, no, gays DO NOT have the right to marry. And, again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy, it's an unrelated subject.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

First, you'llhave to overturn bigamy laws, and good luck with that. Polygamy also is incompatible with primary kinship, the legal basis for marriage. Allowing gay couples to marry doesn't change any of the legal teners therein, just access.
DavidM wrote:
Oh you are wrong. Just as the gays wants their "right" to marry, follow comes the people who believes in Polygamy. Why should those that believe in more then one spouse, be denied their rights if we expand marriage to include gays? Are they any less of a citizen the the rest? If we give the "right" to marry whoever you want, why not open the door all the way?
<quoted text>

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Oh, we all have the right, but that right is not yet recognized in many states.
OkieDarren wrote:
<quoted text>
In most of the US, no, gays DO NOT have the right to marry. And, again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy, it's an unrelated subject.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

DavidM wrote:
Oh you are wrong. Just as the gays wants their "right" to marry, follow comes the people who believes in Polygamy. Why should those that believe in more then one spouse, be denied their rights if we expand marriage to include gays? Are they any less of a citizen the the rest? If we give the "right" to marry whoever you want, why not open the door all the way?
<quoted text>
How many wives can you afford?
.
Solomon in the Bible had 700 wives and 300 lesbians
.
1,000 women all married to each other is the biggest gay marriage in the entire Bible
.
Solomon would need 25 Greyhound Buses just to carry all 1,000 wives dildo shopping at Victoria's Secret

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Straight Sh00ter wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be gay.
No but you are.
Ralph

Bloomingdale, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Some nasty little backward countries in Africa?
Russia.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

OkieDarren wrote:
<quoted text>
In most of the US, no, gays DO NOT have the right to marry. And, again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy, it's an unrelated subject.
Gays can get legally married in a state where it is recognized. Univeral legal recognition is just around the corner. Polygamy has nothing to do with it. Once SSM is universally recognized, the argument against repeal of the Morrill Act will actually be stronger due to immigration concerns. The slippery slope fallacy becomes more idiotic.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>Russia.
Eastern Europe will change long before Africa.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

DavidM wrote:
Big deal. You would think that the counsels as for a repeal of the marriage law in Indiana. Guess what? You still can not get married in Indiana under the current law.
Now lets talk about something more important to Indiana. Polygamy. Look at the people that they are missing out on. We are not talking just about two people getting married. We are talking about three, four, maybe even five people. Maybe one of them is a chemist or a doctor. They could belong to many profession and Indiana is missing out on all of them because Indiana is full of hateful bigots.
It's not that I agree or disagree, it's just that this thread isn't about polygamy, polyandry, or plural marriage.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

read it wrote:
The "Lemon test" is a test the US Supreme Court uses; it details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.(Entanglement Prong)
If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Virginia Cain, acting in her role as an elected member of the government and therefore presumably representing all citizens equally, says "marriage is a beautiful gift from God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He invented it. He defined it - for our benefit and for the benefit of children. And I will stand to protect it."
This proposed amendment not only denies same-sex couples the civil marriage contract - it also denies them civil unions or anything substantially similar. Cain is dead wrong that anyone stands to benefit from this bad and demonstrably unconstitutional amendment as proposed.
Unfortunately in Indiana it is a CRIME to solemnize a SSM. Even ministers face 180 days in jail and a $1000.00 fine.

The law needs abolished not enshrined into the State Constitution.

I'm glad at least a few people get it. It's already illegal in Indiana to have a SSM. Why pass another law making it illegal?

Mayor Greg Ballard said in a statement issued by his office, "I understand that many people hold differing views on this subject, but Indiana law already defines marriage, and I don’t see the overriding government interest in adding such an amendment to our state’s constitution,”.

Now about voting on civil rights, this is from a 1943 SCOTUS ruling.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

-West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Some nasty little backward countries in Africa?
But Russia is nice too!

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

DavidM wrote:
HJR 6
Next
<quoted text>
Think again Einstein:

ARTICLE VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Now about voting on civil rights:
SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Your house of rat droppings is dissolving in the tears of laughter people shed over your ridiculous justifications for your ignorant bigotry.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DavidM wrote:
Oh you are wrong. Just as the gays wants their "right" to marry, follow comes the people who believes in Polygamy. Why should those that believe in more then one spouse, be denied their rights if we expand marriage to include gays? Are they any less of a citizen the the rest? If we give the "right" to marry whoever you want, why not open the door all the way?
<quoted text>
Because 1+1 does not equal 3 or greater.

DUH!

Good lord SSM has been around for over 30 years now in some places and polygamy is still where it was BEFORE SSM came along.

You want the law changed fine. Go for it. But it's wrong to bog down my rights because you can't be happy with some abstract moral dilemma.

SSM equates to "traditional marriage" in a way polygamy can't.
AntiMoron

Anderson, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

DavidM wrote:
Oh you are wrong. Just as the gays wants their "right" to marry, follow comes the people who believes in Polygamy. Why should those that believe in more then one spouse, be denied their rights if we expand marriage to include gays? Are they any less of a citizen the the rest? If we give the "right" to marry whoever you want, why not open the door all the way?
<quoted text>
You're a very ignorant person. You're also very prideful in the display of your ignorance.

The M in your moniker must represent the word MORON.

DavidMoron

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

22 Users are viewing the Indianapolis Forum right now

Search the Indianapolis Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Time to end funding for Israel and Hamas 42 min Sur 13 Beat 3
Libya Falling Again 1 hr The Ultimate Kaptoz 1
Israel wants all of the middle east now 15 hr Tommy 5
Who do you support for U.S. House in Indiana (D... (Oct '10) 17 hr lmfao 89
Carmel doctors arrested for pushing prescriptio... 17 hr LowDownDirty 2
Greg Zoeller and Indianapolis Colts fight presc... 20 hr local landlord 1
Let's wager on Black Expo violence 21 hr Disdude 2
•••
•••
•••
•••

Indianapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Indianapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Indianapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Indianapolis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••