Ind. House passes constitutional gay ...

Ind. House passes constitutional gay marriage ban

There are 60 comments on the WANE-TV Fort Wayne story from Jan 28, 2014, titled Ind. House passes constitutional gay marriage ban. In it, WANE-TV Fort Wayne reports that:

The Indiana House of Representatives approved a proposal Tuesday that would place the state's gay marriage ban in the state constitution, while leaving the door open to eventual approval of civil unions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WANE-TV Fort Wayne.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Jan 28, 2014
This is window-dressing. I have no doubt that in a short time, SCOTUS will rule such bans unconstitutional.
amp

Las Vegas, NV

#2 Jan 28, 2014
Common sense prevailed.
david traversa

Argentina

#3 Jan 28, 2014
amp wrote:
Common sense prevailed.
Bigotry and religious nonsense have prevailed rather .. for awhile ..

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Jan 28, 2014
Remember to flush as you fly-over.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#5 Jan 29, 2014
amp wrote:
Common sense prevailed.
Yes it's always common sense for bigots to pass a law that sets up separate but equal in defiance of SCOTUS rulings.

Good luck with that. LMAO

Cookie_Parker

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#6 Jan 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it's always common sense for bigots to pass a law that sets up separate but equal in defiance of SCOTUS rulings.
Good luck with that. LMAO
Marriage is a state institution. It's not separate but equal...it's unconstitutional to deny citizens access to state institutions based on religious ideology.

Since: Jul 09

Indy/Philly/Toronto

#7 Jan 29, 2014
Indiana ... Russia .... Uganda ... Iran ... not much difference I guess.
My home state has truly become an embarrassment.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Jan 29, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
This is window-dressing. I have no doubt that in a short time, SCOTUS will rule such bans unconstitutional.
They made sure of that when they allowed the second sentence to be taken out and putting any vote by the people off for another two years. At last count there were 37 cases challenging bans in 29 states all heading in the same direction, this will be over well before 2016.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#9 Jan 29, 2014
amp wrote:
Common sense prevailed.
Democracy prevailed and it prevailed over our Republic where each individual has the right to form relationships and associations with other peaceful consenting adults.

I have been telling gay authoritarians who support democracy when it comes to forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes that the very same government that can force a baker to bake cakes can prevent you from getting married.

I do not understand the gay authoritarians love affair with democracy when this gay marriage ban is a direct result of majority rule, mob rule in total and complete violation of the Constitution.

In a Democracy 51% of the voters get to make rules for 100% of the citizens. In a Republic, which America once was, each of of are individuals who own our own lives and as our own monarch we can do any peaceful activity with other consenting adults. Practically speaking this means because you own yourself you decide if you get married. In a Democracy the majority own you and they can decide if you can marry or not.

Why do so many gays prefer democracy over our Republic when their rights are voted on?

You have the right to marry, but because of democracy you are prevented from exercising your rights. Please join me in advocating a return to our Constitution and an end to voting on every ones right. Of course doing so means you will no longer be able to force bakers to bake you cakes.

Humm, lets see, cakes or marriage, gee that is a tuffy!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#10 Jan 29, 2014
david traversa wrote:
<quoted text>Bigotry and religious nonsense have prevailed rather .. for awhile ..
What would be best is if our Constitution prevailed. Let's see, the self rule of a Republic, or the mob rule of a democracy? You decide or the majority 51% decides. Tough choice.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#11 Jan 29, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>They made sure of that when they allowed the second sentence to be taken out and putting any vote by the people off for another two years. At last count there were 37 cases challenging bans in 29 states all heading in the same direction, this will be over well before 2016.
Just look at what your government did to you now Rick in Kansas. How's democracy working out for you?

Funny how when the majority votes against you you want to run to the Constitution for protection, the very same Constitution you believe is OK to violate when it comes to forcing people to bake you cakes.

You own your own life Rick in Kansas, and you have ever right to live it peacefully with other consenting adults just like our baker friend does. You don't like having your rights voted on yet you fully support having the rights of others voted on.

I am saying forcing a baker to bake a cake is as morally wrong as is preventing you from getting married to whom you want to marry.

This thing you have for freedom for gay people but not for others has got to go, freedom only works when everyone is free. For you to be able to say yes to marriage means the baker has the right to say no to it.

Why Americans are completely ignorant of the difference between a Republic and a Democracy is no mystery. It is because the Government is in charge of "education".

So go ahead and attack me and insult me and call me names for supporting ending the unfair, unjust and unconstitutional ban on gay marriage. I can't wait to see if you are going to call me stupid or a moron or both. Why not surprise me with a new insult?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 Jan 29, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
Just look at what your government...
Why is it my fault you are incapable of understanding the difference between constitutionally valid and constitutionally invalid limitations on individual rights? Limitations on the right of bigots to practice what they preach, constitutionally valid, even when subjected to the strict scrutiny necessary to limit religious freedom. Limitations on the individual's right to marry based on the sex of the otherwise legally qualified person they want to marry, not constitutionally valid, even under the rational basis test.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Jan 29, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>They made sure of that when they allowed the second sentence to be taken out and putting any vote by the people off for another two years. At last count there were 37 cases challenging bans in 29 states all heading in the same direction, this will be over well before 2016.
2016 might be a bit early, but these bans are indeed on life support at this point.

A lot depends on how the appeals courts rule. The 9th & 10th circuits will likely rule this summer. If they both rule in our favor, the SCOTUS is likely to just stay out of it allow the rulings to stand.

Next up will be the 6th & 4th circuits-(Michigan & Virginia cases respectively)- sometime in 2015. The 6th circuit is the most conservative dominated circuit and therefore the most likely to rule against us. The earliest the SCOTUS could accept an appeal there would be in the '15/'16 term; more likely it would be in the '16/'17 term, with a decision due by Jun '17.

The worst case scenario would be a SCOTUS decision just before the '16 election. That could cost Hillary the presidency and the Dems the control of the Senate.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#14 Jan 29, 2014
ARTICLE VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

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;

Brown vs Board of Education found that separate but equal is unconstitutional.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15 Jan 29, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
Funny how when the majority votes against you you want to run to the Constitution for protection, the very same Constitution you believe is OK to violate when it comes to forcing people to bake you cakes.
Personally, it isn't a battle I would fight with my local baker--even if the only alternative was baking my own cake. However, there is a basic principal of commerce here, not freedom of choice or religion.

When a baker opens his door to main street, he proclaims "I have cakes to sell to the general public." But then certain people, believing that he has goods to sell that they want, appear in the store and he withdraws his offer.

We have had periods in American history where the outcasts of society were offered custom nowhere. They had no choice but to leave town and even civilization itself. This sordid history of discrimination--sometimes religiously based, at other times racially--is why we decided as a society that goods and services must be offered on an equal basis to all customers.

What is it you like about divided, insular, and vindictive business people?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Jan 29, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Democracy prevailed and it prevailed over our Republic where each individual has the right to form relationships and associations with other peaceful consenting adults.
I have been telling gay authoritarians who support democracy when it comes to forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes that the very same government that can force a baker to bake cakes can prevent you from getting married.
I do not understand the gay authoritarians love affair with democracy when this gay marriage ban is a direct result of majority rule, mob rule in total and complete violation of the Constitution.
In a Democracy 51% of the voters get to make rules for 100% of the citizens. In a Republic, which America once was, each of of are individuals who own our own lives and as our own monarch we can do any peaceful activity with other consenting adults. Practically speaking this means because you own yourself you decide if you get married. In a Democracy the majority own you and they can decide if you can marry or not.
Why do so many gays prefer democracy over our Republic when their rights are voted on?
You have the right to marry, but because of democracy you are prevented from exercising your rights. Please join me in advocating a return to our Constitution and an end to voting on every ones right. Of course doing so means you will no longer be able to force bakers to bake you cakes.
Humm, lets see, cakes or marriage, gee that is a tuffy!
Your version of our Republic never existed; not from its very inception.

Majority rule is written into our Constitution.

It required a majority to ratify the Constitution.
It requires a majority to amend the Constitution.
It requires a majority to elect the President & Vice President, Senators & Representatives.
It requires a majority to ratify treaties & declare war.
It requires a majority to pass all bills in Congress.
It requires a majority to appoint SCOTUS justices.
It requires a majority to issue SCOTUS rulings.

Majority rule is written into every state constitution in a similar manner.

While our Constitution guarantees the rights of its citizens, those rights ARE still subject to majority rule in some form or another.

You espouse a system of anarchy which the founders never envisioned and did not provide for.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Jan 29, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Just look at what your government did to you now Rick in Kansas. How's democracy working out for you?
Funny how when the majority votes against you you want to run to the Constitution for protection, the very same Constitution you believe is OK to violate when it comes to forcing people to bake you cakes.
You own your own life Rick in Kansas, and you have ever right to live it peacefully with other consenting adults just like our baker friend does. You don't like having your rights voted on yet you fully support having the rights of others voted on.
I am saying forcing a baker to bake a cake is as morally wrong as is preventing you from getting married to whom you want to marry.
This thing you have for freedom for gay people but not for others has got to go, freedom only works when everyone is free. For you to be able to say yes to marriage means the baker has the right to say no to it.
Why Americans are completely ignorant of the difference between a Republic and a Democracy is no mystery. It is because the Government is in charge of "education".
So go ahead and attack me and insult me and call me names for supporting ending the unfair, unjust and unconstitutional ban on gay marriage. I can't wait to see if you are going to call me stupid or a moron or both. Why not surprise me with a new insult?
No one has been forced to bake a cake.

Stop being so melodramatic.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#18 Jan 29, 2014
amp wrote:
Common sense prevailed.
Here we go again. I'm expected to control my anger when other people don't control their stupidity.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#19 Jan 29, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
This is window-dressing. I have no doubt that in a short time, SCOTUS will rule such bans unconstitutional.
They already started ruling separate but equal is unconstitutional way back when they heard Brown vs Board of Education.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#20 Jan 29, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
2016 might be a bit early, but these bans are indeed on life support at this point.
A lot depends on how the appeals courts rule. The 9th & 10th circuits will likely rule this summer. If they both rule in our favor, the SCOTUS is likely to just stay out of it allow the rulings to stand.
Next up will be the 6th & 4th circuits-(Michigan & Virginia cases respectively)- sometime in 2015. The 6th circuit is the most conservative dominated circuit and therefore the most likely to rule against us. The earliest the SCOTUS could accept an appeal there would be in the '15/'16 term; more likely it would be in the '16/'17 term, with a decision due by Jun '17.
The worst case scenario would be a SCOTUS decision just before the '16 election. That could cost Hillary the presidency and the Dems the control of the Senate.
While the federal courts work at their own plodding pace, the wild card in this are state court rulings. The Missouri Supreme Court ruling is already eligible for direct appeal and there are a number of other state challenges not far behind it. This should be over by next summer if not before then.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 41 min Respect71 49,243
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 48 min guest 1,642
News Gay Couple and Their 3 Kids Denied 'Family Boar... 5 hr Bossmanant 1
News Amherst raises Pride flag 5 hr The Wheeze of Trump 2
News Board of Supervisors celebrates Solano's diversity 6 hr Topanga 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 5,980
News Katherine Clark, Betsy DeVos get into heated di... 7 hr BornGay 3
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 7 hr orlando 434
News Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance Allowed To ... 8 hr The Wheeze of Trump 32
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 9 hr NE Jade 25,616
More from around the web