Keeping gay marriage out of voters' hand

Keeping gay marriage out of voters' hand

There are 3934 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Mar 4, 2008, titled Keeping gay marriage out of voters' hand. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

On Feb. 15, Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan, decided to not hear Senate Joint Resolution 7, legislation that included the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

Get Over IT

United States

#404 Mar 7, 2008
Tracy M wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do work in Marion Co....
No, I do not discriminate, as I do not ask potential employees what their sexual preference is. That would be against the law.
I don't see where I said I wouldn't hire a homosexual...is it between the lines somewhere that I missed?
I would however, fire someone that brought their sexuality to the workplace, homosexual or not. NO TOLERENCE.
You didn't say in your post that you wouldn't hire a gay person; I was making assumptions. Maybe you're not the "big evil" I think you to be.

Since: Jan 08

Indianapolis, IN

#405 Mar 7, 2008
IN FLUX wrote:
<quoted text> Tell me when it wasn't higher Dan.
no.. you make a claim like that you are the one who has to back it up.
IN FLUX

United States

#406 Mar 7, 2008
dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one who made the assertion that it was. You're the one with the responsibility to provide evidence backing that up. I'm curious as to where you've even found statistics on gay-on-straight violence - I've never run across any mention or any studies of that.
Keep Looking.
Rationalist

Washington, DC

#407 Mar 7, 2008
IN FLUX wrote:
<quoted text> Oh, I think I have. You prove it everytime you post.
Again, you avoid the question. Another sign of a weak argument.
dan

Indianapolis, IN

#408 Mar 7, 2008
IN FLUX wrote:
<quoted text>Keep Looking.
Again, you're the one who made the assertion. If you can't back it up, everybody's gonna conclude that you were making it up.

Since your rhetorical standards already seem pretty shakey, you can't afford to lose any more credibility. Pretty much all you do is ignore pointed logical arguments and divert attention away from your lack of rationale by accusing everyone of being angry. If you really don't care to participate in a rational debate, why are you wasting your time?
Rationalist

Washington, DC

#409 Mar 7, 2008
IN FLUX wrote:
Some people posting are confused. The issue is that gay marriage in Indiana is not legally recognized. Some people are posting as if it is. Their argument is based on this false premise. They become frustrated when we don't accept their false premise. It is that simple. Don't make it so hard on yourself. Be Happy.
The issue is about whether there should be a change to the constitution of the state to prohibit something that is already illegal.
IN FLUX

United States

#410 Mar 7, 2008
Sabinus wrote:
<quoted text>
no.. you make a claim like that you are the one who has to back it up.
You have to try harder. Keep Looking.

Go Cubs !
John A

Latrobe, PA

#411 Mar 7, 2008
I'd like to take an opportunity to remind the author, and others of his ilk, that we DO NOT live in a democracy. I don't mean this in a way that implies that we are SUPPOSED to be a democracy, but that we don't live up to what we were intended to be. I mean very clearly that the United States is NOT a democracy. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The difference? In a democracy, 51% of the voters could conceivable restrict or abolish the rights of the 49% "minority." In a constitutional republic, 99% of the citizenry cannot take away the constitutionally-secured rights of 1% of the population, by ballot or other means.

Marriage equality is not an issue that should be decided by "majority rule". It is a constitutional question that should be decided by the courts.
IN FLUX

United States

#412 Mar 7, 2008
dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you're the one who made the assertion. If you can't back it up, everybody's gonna conclude that you were making it up.
Since your rhetorical standards already seem pretty shakey, you can't afford to lose any more credibility. Pretty much all you do is ignore pointed logical arguments and divert attention away from your lack of rationale by accusing everyone of being angry. If you really don't care to participate in a rational debate, why are you wasting your time?
Dan, the issue is gay marriage in Indiana is not legal. You are the one wandering all over the place trying to come up with a rational. You build your arguement on a false premise. An analogy: If you build a house on a crumbling foundation, the house will fall down. You do sound angry. Be happy.

Since: Jul 07

Dayton, OH

#413 Mar 7, 2008
duh wrote:
<quoted text>If you change the definition of "marriage" to include same sex couples from the existing definition (only between a man and woman)then the meaning/definition of marriage changes.
No one is changing the meaning of marriage by changing the qualifications. Unless of course you view your marriage differently since gays started getting married. Did you?

People enter into marriage for different reasons there is no one meaning of marriage.
IN FLUX

United States

#414 Mar 7, 2008
Rationalist wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is about whether there should be a change to the constitution of the state to prohibit something that is already illegal.
Correct. Fianlly someone who is catching on. We just want to vote on the issue, so that it can be added to the constitution. Then liberal activist judges won't be able to change the law that is already on the books. It is really that simple. Thank you for getting it. Now maybe you can clue in some of your brothers, they are having a hard time understanding. Be Happy.

Since: Jul 07

Dayton, OH

#415 Mar 7, 2008
IN FLUX wrote:
<quoted text> So now you are going to tell me what is acceptable and what isn't. You do not get to define what I think. What bias. Gay marriage is not legal in Indiana. It seems you are the one who can not accept reality. Please seek help. Be Happy.
In other words you couldn't back up the idea that gays are increasing the rates of insurance just because they can have their partner on their insurance. I'm not telling you anything....I'm asking that the statement be backed up. So don't get all riled up, it's not healthy for you and you will cause the insurance rates to go up because of it.

Gay marriage is legal in Indiana they are just not recognized by the state. As soon as you can see that then perhaps your blood pressure will come done.

Since: Jul 07

Dayton, OH

#416 Mar 7, 2008
IN FLUX wrote:
<quoted text> That is what we are saying, we don't want the rules to change. Gay marriage in Indiana is not legally recognized. You don't seem to be able to recognize this. You may have a reading or comprehension disorder. There is help for these learning diabilities. You should avail yourself of these programs. Be Happy.
LOL

So you agree the meaning of marriage will not change. Thank you.

Since: Feb 08

United States

#417 Mar 7, 2008
Get Over IT wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't say in your post that you wouldn't hire a gay person; I was making assumptions. Maybe you're not the "big evil" I think you to be.
I personally have no hate towards homosexuals...I simply do not believe in that their lifestyle should be flaunted out in public where overall society does not accept it.

I also don't think heterosexuals should be flaunting their permiscuous and otherwise less than desireable lyfestyles as well.

Everyone should keep their sex life to themselves...I don't need to know which way you lean...It is none of my business just as it is none of society's business.

The sick street fairs in San Francisco are an example of the degeneration efforts made by the "gay agenda"

That sure is promoting good family values to our children.

It is one thing to have the liberation to express your views in a parade, but just like Militias...I'm sure that there would be a big uprising if a parade of armed citizens paraded through town baring their assualt rifles.
Legally, militias have this right, but it is another thing to flaunt your rights infront of groups you know will surely oppose it.

Part of this is respect for the community and the "gay left" in San Fran clearly do not understand this.

Since: Jan 08

Indianapolis, IN

#418 Mar 7, 2008
IN FLUX wrote:
<quoted text>You have to try harder. Keep Looking.
Go Cubs !
theres no need for me to look for anything. I dont think your claim is valid. Until I see something that changes my opinion I will chalk it us as more unsubstatiated rankings.
John A

Latrobe, PA

#419 Mar 7, 2008
IN FLUX wrote:
<quoted text>Correct. Fianlly someone who is catching on. We just want to vote on the issue, so that it can be added to the constitution. Then liberal activist judges won't be able to change the law that is already on the books. It is really that simple. Thank you for getting it. Now maybe you can clue in some of your brothers, they are having a hard time understanding. Be Happy.
Of course you want to amend your state constitution; its the only way you'll be able to codify the discrimination that you propose. Those who are in such a rush to amend both state constitutions and the U.S. constitution (presumably you belong to this group) clearly show their desperation and fear. You'd have no other reason to do so if you didn't know in your fear-mongering guts that constitutional law demands equality, even for gays & lesbians. So, the only way you can stop "liberal" judges (Read: They don't think the same way I do so I oppose them, even though they're the legal experts and I have no experience of jurisprudence whatsoever)from ruling that marriage inequality is unconstitutional is by doing what is unprecedented in the history of this nation: to codify discrimination and remove the protections of equal justice under law.

You and those who agree with you won't succeed. It would take a collective wiping of the nation's backside with the state and federal constitutions. Despite its tendency toward befuddledness and its bias against education, our nation is still primarily populated with TRUE rationalists. And that's something to truly BE HAPPY about.

Since: Feb 08

United States

#420 Mar 7, 2008
Sabinus wrote:
<quoted text>
theres no need for me to look for anything. I dont think your claim is valid. Until I see something that changes my opinion I will chalk it us as more unsubstatiated rankings.
I did a bit of searching myself and all I could come up with are studies of anti-gay violence as well as violence among gay partners...

http://www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesb...

I'm sure those studies are out there on anti-straight violence...
You would think that the studies would be fairly recent or currently in progress.
Rationalist

Washington, DC

#421 Mar 7, 2008
IN FLUX wrote:
<quoted text>Correct. Fianlly someone who is catching on. We just want to vote on the issue, so that it can be added to the constitution. Then liberal activist judges won't be able to change the law that is already on the books. It is really that simple. Thank you for getting it. Now maybe you can clue in some of your brothers, they are having a hard time understanding. Be Happy.
As opposed to conservative activist judges?
Seriously, your elected officials enacted a law. If it has been challenged in the courts and found wanting or if it has been upheld, that is the purpose of due process and the 5th amendment of the US Constitution. Why reinvent the wheel?

Since: Jul 07

Dayton, OH

#422 Mar 7, 2008
Tracy M wrote:
<quoted text>
I personally have no hate towards homosexuals...I simply do not believe in that their lifestyle should be flaunted out in public where overall society does not accept it.
I also don't think heterosexuals should be flaunting their permiscuous and otherwise less than desireable lyfestyles as well.
Everyone should keep their sex life to themselves...I don't need to know which way you lean...It is none of my business just as it is none of society's business.
The sick street fairs in San Francisco are an example of the degeneration efforts made by the "gay agenda"
That sure is promoting good family values to our children.
It is one thing to have the liberation to express your views in a parade, but just like Militias...I'm sure that there would be a big uprising if a parade of armed citizens paraded through town baring their assualt rifles.
Legally, militias have this right, but it is another thing to flaunt your rights infront of groups you know will surely oppose it.
Part of this is respect for the community and the "gay left" in San Fran clearly do not understand this.
What exactly is it that people do in public that makes you think about other peoples sex lives(or as you call it a lifestyle)?

“I know you are, but what am I?”

Since: Dec 06

That way...

#423 Mar 7, 2008
Tracy M wrote:
<quoted text>I would however, fire someone that brought their sexuality to the workplace, homosexual or not. NO TOLERENCE.
What does this mean? How would anyone - regardless of their sexual orientation - "bring" their sexuality to the workplace?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Indianapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sources: Dog trainer reaches agreement with city 20 hr blackoaks1 1
Michelle from the WH stops in at Opies Place Fri Amy 1
MCSO inmate search on their website. (Sep '12) Fri Yessir 3
News Neighbors in custom homes put up a fight with P... (Jan '11) Dec 1 lavon affair 95
Obama is so smiling at Hllary Loss Dec 1 TrumpPenceRock 1
Industrial Maintenance Job Fair - Honda Manufac... Dec 1 Lori Legge 1
Nibiru Safe Zones Dec 1 PlanetX 1

Indianapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Indianapolis Mortgages