Pressure builds for lawmakers voting on gay marriage ban

Jan 11, 2014 Full story: The Indianapolis Star 13

Kathy Loser, Bloomington, holds an equal sign to show support during a rally put on by Indiana Equality, a gay rights group, to express opposition to the proposed same-sex marriage ban.

Full Story
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1 Jan 11, 2014
Indiana's legislators are a day behind and a dollar short. I guess they don't have televisions in Indiana
.
The US Justice Department has just rendered Indiana's efforts moot
.
Legally married gay couples get full federal marriage benefits regardless of state constitutions and state laws
.
So the only thing Indiana's legislators are going to end up doing is to diasble Indiana's right to tax gay couples
.
Losers!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2 Jan 12, 2014
So what are gays worried about, I mean if it goes to ballot? All I ever read about is the majority support they have.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Jan 12, 2014
Wondering wrote:
So what are gays worried about, I mean if it goes to ballot? All I ever read about is the majority support they have.
Because we're intelligent enough to realize that while we may have majority support in general across the US, your fellow anti-gays are concentrated in certain conservative states. Obviously we have less of a chance at passing marriage equality in Mississippi or Alabama or Kansas or in this case Indiana than we would in Massachusetts or Washington or Oregon or Colorado.

Bigots tend to cluster together, especially in the confederacy. As an example, Alabama & Mississippi would probably vote to reinstate segregation and ban inter-racial marriages today if they were allowed a popular vote on the issue.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Jan 12, 2014
As demographics continue to change and the anti-gays continue to die off, within a decade they won't be able to get a majority even in the confederacy.

The anti-gays know this is likely their last chance to win a vote, which is why they're pushing so hard to get this on the ballot before the courts overturn all remaining bans.

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#6 Jan 12, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
You shiteaters are so confident, let the people speak for all in the 2016 national election. Chickenshit.
Your obsessions about strange eating patterns aside, why in the world should there be a vote on which guaranteed civil and human rights any minority receives?

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#9 Jan 12, 2014
Wondering wrote:
So what are gays worried about, I mean if it goes to ballot? All I ever read about is the majority support they have.
Can you point to the parts of the constitution that state that equal protections under the law can be put to a vote? That basic civil and human rights of any minority can be voted away by the majority without any state interest?

Thanks.

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#11 Jan 12, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
As for you queers strange eating habits, not my fault you freaks like the taste .........
Just saying silly things like that don't make them true, as any sane person knows. Why project the filth in your mind on others? Wouldn't it make more sense to try to heal yourself? Gay folks aren't the problem for you - your own mind is, and it's sad.

Since: Jul 09

Indy/Philly/Toronto

#12 Jan 12, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
You shiteaters are so confident, let the people speak for all in the 2016 national election. Chickenshit.
Chickenshit?
I think gay people have been pretty brave considering the hate, misunderstandings, stereotypes, hypocrisy and threats from unintelligent trolls who can't even write a simple sentence in English.
History will always sides with the minorities who fought for their rights while depicting your kind as immoral and unpatriotic.
Gay rights will prevail ... it is a mathematical certainty.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#13 Jan 12, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
As demographics continue to change and the anti-gays continue to die off, within a decade they won't be able to get a majority even in the confederacy.
The anti-gays know this is likely their last chance to win a vote, which is why they're pushing so hard to get this on the ballot before the courts overturn all remaining bans.
The article claims this is ground zero in the national debate on SSM. I disagree. Right now I think the situation in Utah is the real ground zero, but this is a very close second.

I just hope the Legislature sees that the anti-gay SSM ban ship is sinking and SSM is inevitable.

The people of Indiana need to see that if this passes, they are simply wasting more tax dollars fighting for an unwinnable cause.

IMO the Windsor decision is the straw that broke the camel’s back for the anti gay movement.

What is happening in Utah now is the beginning of the end for the anti-gays and their cause. The Windsor decision will eventually be applied to all other State bans against SSM.
Under Windsor SCOTUS made it clear that gays and lesbians have a right to equal protection under marriage laws.

Ask the NRA what happens when a State tries to deny a citizen a Federal Right.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#14 Jan 12, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
You shiteaters are so confident, let the people speak for all in the 2016 national election. Chickenshit.
You might want to pay attention to the national elections in 2014 first. In case you didn't know more people are voting during mid terms now. Those of us with political acumen understand that all the hoopla over who will run in 2016 is simply mindless noise.

Considering what has happened in just the last few months in NM and Utah it's very likely Indiana may decide to end the fight against SSM.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#15 Jan 12, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you point to the parts of the constitution that state that equal protections under the law can be put to a vote? That basic civil and human rights of any minority can be voted away by the majority without any state interest?
Thanks.
Well said.
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."

AMENDMENT XIV SECTION 1.
" ... 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.
Article VI [Legal Status of the Constitution]
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.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Constitution of the United States
Article. 3.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Constitution of the United States Amendment. I.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each."
- Chief Justice John Marshall; Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#17 Jan 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Well said.
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."
AMENDMENT XIV SECTION 1.
" ... 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.
Article VI [Legal Status of the Constitution]
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.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Constitution of the United States
Article. 3.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Constitution of the United States Amendment. I.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each."
- Chief Justice John Marshall; Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
I knew you would post this!:)
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#18 Jan 12, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
You shiteaters are so confident, let the people speak for all in the 2016 national election. Chickenshit.
Yes, just as they spoke for all in the 2012 elections, opting for the very pro-marriage equality candidate and against the very anti-marriage equality candidate. You people are so certain of yourselves and what you imagine is support for your bigotry that not only are you unable to see the forest for the trees, you also can't see the trees for the forest. The world has moved past you. If you'll send me your address, I'll send you a dollar so you can buy a clue.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 6 min Static Discharge 29,662
Anti-gay hotel owners refuse to host another sa... 25 min DNF 9
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr GayleWood 51,325
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 2 hr Boni 553
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 4 hr DNF 950
Couple who met as women five years ago set to m... 5 hr DNF 20
Woman arrested as gay couple gets Alabama marri... 7 hr DNF 22
More from around the web