Indiana House Panel Delays Vote on Ga...

Indiana House Panel Delays Vote on Gay Marriage Ban

There are 14 comments on the EDGE story from Jan 13, 2014, titled Indiana House Panel Delays Vote on Gay Marriage Ban. In it, EDGE reports that:

The House Judiciary Committee has delayed a vote on a proposal to amend Indiana's constitution to ban gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Jan 13, 2014
That could be a good sign, or it could mean nothing other than they'll vote in favor tomorrow instead.

But at least it's something.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Jan 13, 2014
The train station tearoom is usually hopping after the weekend, so the Republican legislators wanted to put off their _work_ load until at least Tue.

Since: Jan 08

Pattaya, Thailand

#3 Jan 13, 2014
I love the logic of putting it in a state constitution so it can't be overturned.... except by a federal court. Way to waste tax money, blockheads!
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#4 Jan 14, 2014
How did Indiana fall a half century behind the rest of society?
.
Do they not have internet; television; and paved roads?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5 Jan 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
That could be a good sign, or it could mean nothing other than they'll vote in favor tomorrow instead.
But at least it's something.
Denying State's Rights is a good thing?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#6 Jan 14, 2014
Cookie_Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
Denying State's Rights is a good thing?
When they abuse those rights? Yes !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Jan 14, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
How did Indiana fall a half century behind the rest of society?
.
Do they not have internet; television; and paved roads?
No, they don't.

Ironically one of their major industries is RV motorhome construction done by the Amish.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Jan 14, 2014
Cookie_Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
Denying State's Rights is a good thing?
States don't have a right to infringe on a citizen's federal constitutional rights.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9 Jan 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they don't.
Ironically one of their major industries is RV motorhome construction done by the Amish.
Until someone figures out how to power a wi-fi hot spot with propane, they'll have to continue driving their RV's to get the news.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10 Jan 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
That could be a good sign, or it could mean nothing other than they'll vote in favor tomorrow instead.
But at least it's something.
I'm still betting that they'll drop the second sentence and pass it. What will happen in 2015 or 2016 is anyone's guess. A constitutional amendment on marriage might very well be moot by 2016.

There really isn't much point in the amendment, though. SCOTUS is going to rule soon enough and either confirm states' rights to restrict marriage, or it will decree marriage equality nationwide. It isn't going to make one bit of difference whether the restriction is in the state law book or the state constitution.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Jan 14, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm still betting that they'll drop the second sentence and pass it. What will happen in 2015 or 2016 is anyone's guess. A constitutional amendment on marriage might very well be moot by 2016.
There really isn't much point in the amendment, though. SCOTUS is going to rule soon enough and either confirm states' rights to restrict marriage, or it will decree marriage equality nationwide. It isn't going to make one bit of difference whether the restriction is in the state law book or the state constitution.
I agree they're likely to drop the 2nd sentence about civil unions. That would push the vote to 2016 at the earliest, which gives us more time to build support to defeat it, but also ensures a large conservative turnout for the GOP presidential candidate.

I seriously doubt the SCOTUS is going to rule by 2016. But if they DO rule states have the right to ban same-sex couples from marrying, those bans could STILL be overturned by a state court based on their state constitution. So I can see states like Indiana still pushing for such an amendment to prevent that from happening. Also, by having it in the constitution, it makes it a longer & more difficult to overturn it through the normal legislative process, as we're seeing in places like Wisconsin & Michigan & Oregon. That's how the southern states especially will keep their marriage bans, by simply preventing any vote from happening.

I just don't think the SCOTUS is an any hurry to resolve this issue yet. That may change, but not until we get conflicting rulings from multiple appeals courts. There really is no reason for them to step in now.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12 Jan 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree they're likely to drop the 2nd sentence about civil unions. That would push the vote to 2016 at the earliest, which gives us more time to build support to defeat it, but also ensures a large conservative turnout for the GOP presidential candidate.
I seriously doubt the SCOTUS is going to rule by 2016. But if they DO rule states have the right to ban same-sex couples from marrying, those bans could STILL be overturned by a state court based on their state constitution. So I can see states like Indiana still pushing for such an amendment to prevent that from happening. Also, by having it in the constitution, it makes it a longer & more difficult to overturn it through the normal legislative process, as we're seeing in places like Wisconsin & Michigan & Oregon. That's how the southern states especially will keep their marriage bans, by simply preventing any vote from happening.
I just don't think the SCOTUS is an any hurry to resolve this issue yet. That may change, but not until we get conflicting rulings from multiple appeals courts. There really is no reason for them to step in now.
I think SCOTUS is going to be forced sooner than they want--and possibly sooner than I want. We've got cases wending through several states in several circuits right now. The circuit appeals will start being heard in 2015, with some decisions possibly coming this year.

If the first several all overturn marriage bans, then maybe SCOTUS will just let overwhelming precedent stand. More likely, they'll have a conflict that they need to resolve by 2016.

In any event, there will be a lot of publicity and conversations over the next three years. If Indiana is going to ballot in 2016, they should start now to do the kind of voter education that worked in Washington and Maine.

BTW: Even in a conservative state, Presidential elections years are better for liberals than off-years.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Jan 14, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I think SCOTUS is going to be forced sooner than they want--and possibly sooner than I want. We've got cases wending through several states in several circuits right now. The circuit appeals will start being heard in 2015, with some decisions possibly coming this year.
If the first several all overturn marriage bans, then maybe SCOTUS will just let overwhelming precedent stand. More likely, they'll have a conflict that they need to resolve by 2016.
In any event, there will be a lot of publicity and conversations over the next three years. If Indiana is going to ballot in 2016, they should start now to do the kind of voter education that worked in Washington and Maine.
BTW: Even in a conservative state, Presidential elections years are better for liberals than off-years.
I can see the SCOTUS simply refusing to take any marriage cases, even if there are conflicting rulings from circuit courts. In fact, I think it's MORE likely they will simply refuse all appeals if those rulings come sooner rather than later. As long as the federal govt continues to recognize all valid marriages regardless of where the couple resides, it takes a lot of pressure off the SCOTUS to resolve anything any time soon.

My personal prediction would be for sometime after the 2016 election; so as not to inject another highly charged issue into an already polarized electorate.

The other big unknown would be if Kennedy and/or Scalia should retire or die before the 2016 election. In that case all bets would be off.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14 Jan 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
My personal prediction would be for sometime after the 2016 election; so as not to inject another highly charged issue into an already polarized electorate.
That sounds like a good prediction. But they still might hear the case in the 2016-2017 term.

A year ago, I wouldn't have expected the cases to reach SCOTUS until 2020. Now I can't imagine it dragging on more than four years.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 min Catherine 18,239
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 24 min lides 40,264
News Transgender stories: when you are born in the w... 1 hr TerriB1 16
News 10 Reasons Why You Should Help Fight Biphobia i... 1 hr RalphB 32
So whips the forum sniveler?.. 1 hr Left of centre 6
Poll I troll the gay/lesbian forum because... (Dec '08) 1 hr Left of centre 32
Straight Cafe 1 hr Left of centre 3
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 2 hr Left of centre 68,990
More from around the web