Ind. House Members Split on Gay Marriage

There are 20 comments on the Jan 27, 2014, EDGE story titled Ind. House Members Split on Gay Marriage. In it, EDGE reports that:

A poll of the 100 members of the Indiana House shows 38 plan to vote for a proposed constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage and 38 plan to vote against it, a newspaper report said Sunday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2 Jan 27, 2014
I still think they'll amend the second sentence, then pass the resolution by a large margin. Then we get to have the battle all over again in 2015 or 2016.

Time is on our side.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3 Jan 27, 2014
Nothing like wasting taxpayers money trying to ban something they ALREADY BANNED.

When this went on in Florida I asked people why we needed a State Constitutional Amendment. Activist Judges was always the answer.

These people don't seem to understand that just because you pass a law that doesn't make it legal.

These State Constitutional Amendments will be struck down in time. We know it and they know it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4 Jan 27, 2014
The committee hearing the resolution voted tonight to amend out the second sentence and yo send it to the House for a vote. The amendment kills all their hopes of getting it to the ballot this year. If it passes the full House and Senate, it would have to be approved again in 2016,

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6 Jan 28, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The committee hearing the resolution voted tonight to amend out the second sentence and yo send it to the House for a vote. The amendment kills all their hopes of getting it to the ballot this year. If it passes the full House and Senate, it would have to be approved again in 2016,
They could actually act again in 2015, but it would not appear on the ballot until 2016. I mention this because the resolution could have been acted on by the legislature in 2013. If it had, I think it would surely have passed without amendment--especially if it passed in winter or spring.

Time is on our side. They may be a bit slow at times, but the resolution's proponents have undoubtedly figured that out now. I don't think they'll make the mistake of waiting until 2016 to affirm the resolution.

We shall see today, but I expect the new resolution to pass by nearly as large majorities as the last. I hope Indiana is laying the groundwork for a ballot initiative in 2016 with the same focus on individual outreach that Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota successfully employed. It will take all the time we have available.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Jan 28, 2014
Yea!

At least we don't risk a ban passing this year!

Now we can focus all our energy on overturning Oregon's ban.

And the longer it takes to get the Indiana ban on the ballot, the better our chances of defeating it.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8 Jan 28, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Now we can focus all our energy on overturning Oregon's ban.
What do you think of overturning Ohio this year? Personally, I'd rather see the tactic demonstrated in a more-friendly state such as Oregon before we go after the midwest.

The flip side is that our opponents' resources are diminishing. It is now to our advantage to wage war on as many fronts as possible. We seem to be able to generate resources as the battle requires. Their few donors are getting tired of losing, and they aren't getting any new supporters.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#9 Jan 28, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Yea!
At least we don't risk a ban passing this year!
Now we can focus all our energy on overturning Oregon's ban.
And the longer it takes to get the Indiana ban on the ballot, the better our chances of defeating it.
I was about to ask you, Am I missing something here?, but I think I figured it out for myself, hahahaha.

I was just looking at the comments you guys had made and asking, Why isn't anyone saying this ban could be DEAD ON ARRIVAL? It could go to court and be overturned federally the *second* it's enacted.

Then I realized that surely all of you, who are intelligent and perceptive in these matters, hadn't overlooked that, but you're talking about *procedure* here: the actual procedure in Indiana, and what will come of that.

My own comment has now made me curious as to whether any pro-gay group would be interested in filing a federal case the *second* this passed, if it did, in 2016. By that point -- I'm relatively sure; I wouldn't say "mark my words" but I have quite a bit of confidence -- that such a move would be seen as sensible and inevitable, almost preordained.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10 Jan 28, 2014
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I was about to ask you, Am I missing something here?, but I think I figured it out for myself, hahahaha.
I was just looking at the comments you guys had made and asking, Why isn't anyone saying this ban could be DEAD ON ARRIVAL? It could go to court and be overturned federally the *second* it's enacted.
Then I realized that surely all of you, who are intelligent and perceptive in these matters, hadn't overlooked that, but you're talking about *procedure* here: the actual procedure in Indiana, and what will come of that.
My own comment has now made me curious as to whether any pro-gay group would be interested in filing a federal case the *second* this passed, if it did, in 2016. By that point -- I'm relatively sure; I wouldn't say "mark my words" but I have quite a bit of confidence -- that such a move would be seen as sensible and inevitable, almost preordained.
Again, time is on our side, but only if we're patient.

First, let me note that we could challenge Indiana's legal ban on same-sex marriage in court today. We don't have to wait until they write it into the constitution.

Second, the chance that SCOTUS will dispose of the same-sex marriage bans before November is nil. If the amendment were to appear on Indiana's ballot this year and pass, the best that could be hoped for is that the ban be short-lived. SCOTUS could take a case and rule on same-sex marriage country-wide as early as 2015, but no earlier. Delaying the ballot initiative not only increases the chances of beating it: It markedly increases the chance that it will be moot even before the vote.

When SCOTUS rules, it really won't matter whether bans are in law or in state constitutions: Either the states' right to discriminate will be upheld, or all the laws and amendments will be struck. So Indiana's amendment is more rhetorical than substantive.I would anticipate having all bans overturned by SCOTUS within the decade. If the marriage bans are upheld, however, it will be a couple more decades until they will be reconsidered.(Consider Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Lawrence v Texas (2003). We have already waited four decades to have Baker v Nelson (1971) reconsidered.

We would prefer to avoid putting the people of Indiana through an ugly, divisive election season. In the end, however, it will make little difference.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Jan 28, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think of overturning Ohio this year? Personally, I'd rather see the tactic demonstrated in a more-friendly state such as Oregon before we go after the midwest.
The flip side is that our opponents' resources are diminishing. It is now to our advantage to wage war on as many fronts as possible. We seem to be able to generate resources as the battle requires. Their few donors are getting tired of losing, and they aren't getting any new supporters.
I think Ohio will decide to wait until 2016 when the electorate will be much more friendly. Ditto for Michigan, Colorado, & Arizona.

Oregon sounds like they're going forward this year regardless of whether the courts overturn their ban. They are the most likely to be successful, and I'd hate to see us go back to losing referendum votes just because we pushed too soon.

I like the multi-pronged approach right now.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Jan 28, 2014
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I was about to ask you, Am I missing something here?, but I think I figured it out for myself, hahahaha.
I was just looking at the comments you guys had made and asking, Why isn't anyone saying this ban could be DEAD ON ARRIVAL? It could go to court and be overturned federally the *second* it's enacted.
Then I realized that surely all of you, who are intelligent and perceptive in these matters, hadn't overlooked that, but you're talking about *procedure* here: the actual procedure in Indiana, and what will come of that.
My own comment has now made me curious as to whether any pro-gay group would be interested in filing a federal case the *second* this passed, if it did, in 2016. By that point -- I'm relatively sure; I wouldn't say "mark my words" but I have quite a bit of confidence -- that such a move would be seen as sensible and inevitable, almost preordained.
As we've seen in Pennsylvania, there is no need to wait for a ban to be enacted in the state constitution to make a federal challenge in Indiana.

Not sure what they're waiting for.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Jan 28, 2014
Maybe a federal lawsuit in Indiana would drive home the point that a state constitutional amendment is a waste of time.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14 Jan 28, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Ohio will decide to wait until 2016 when the electorate will be much more friendly. Ditto for Michigan, Colorado, & Arizona.
I believe Ohio already has enough signatures to put the measure onto the ballot this year. If they decide not to turn them in and go instead for 2016, won't they have to start from scratch collecting signatures? I think that might be a bit disheartening to the gatherers.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15 Jan 28, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
They could actually act again in 2015, but it would not appear on the ballot until 2016. I mention this because the resolution could have been acted on by the legislature in 2013. If it had, I think it would surely have passed without amendment--especially if it passed in winter or spring.
Time is on our side. They may be a bit slow at times, but the resolution's proponents have undoubtedly figured that out now. I don't think they'll make the mistake of waiting until 2016 to affirm the resolution.
We shall see today, but I expect the new resolution to pass by nearly as large majorities as the last. I hope Indiana is laying the groundwork for a ballot initiative in 2016 with the same focus on individual outreach that Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota successfully employed. It will take all the time we have available.
I had read that the amendment to the resolution ensured that it would have to wait to 16 to be on the ballot, I just assumed that meant it had to be approved by the Legislature in that year to get it there. It really doesn't matter, the fate of the amendments already in existence will be determined long before then. I read yesterday that there are currently 37 different challenges to 29 different state laws between state and federal courts. This might before the Supremes before the year's out, next year at the latest.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Jan 28, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe Ohio already has enough signatures to put the measure onto the ballot this year. If they decide not to turn them in and go instead for 2016, won't they have to start from scratch collecting signatures? I think that might be a bit disheartening to the gatherers.
I honestly don't know the answer to that, but it's one of the reasons all groups need to be on the same page in a state so those issues don't come up. A half-assed disorganized effort can cause more harm than good.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#17 Jan 28, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly don't know the answer to that, but it's one of the reasons all groups need to be on the same page in a state so those issues don't come up. A half-assed disorganized effort can cause more harm than good.
If I recall correctly, Ohio groups have gone of half-cocked a couple of times before. But this is the first time a group has been organized enough to actually get the required signatures.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#18 Jan 28, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, time is on our side, but only if we're patient.
First, let me note that we could challenge Indiana's legal ban on same-sex marriage in court today. We don't have to wait until they write it into the constitution.
Second, the chance that SCOTUS will dispose of the same-sex marriage bans before November is nil. If the amendment were to appear on Indiana's ballot this year and pass, the best that could be hoped for is that the ban be short-lived. SCOTUS could take a case and rule on same-sex marriage country-wide as early as 2015, but no earlier. Delaying the ballot initiative not only increases the chances of beating it: It markedly increases the chance that it will be moot even before the vote.
When SCOTUS rules, it really won't matter whether bans are in law or in state constitutions: Either the states' right to discriminate will be upheld, or all the laws and amendments will be struck. So Indiana's amendment is more rhetorical than substantive.I would anticipate having all bans overturned by SCOTUS within the decade. If the marriage bans are upheld, however, it will be a couple more decades until they will be reconsidered.(Consider Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Lawrence v Texas (2003). We have already waited four decades to have Baker v Nelson (1971) reconsidered.
We would prefer to avoid putting the people of Indiana through an ugly, divisive election season. In the end, however, it will make little difference.
I do understand people's impatience. Only fear and lies are keeping this from happening faster: That's it.

Thank you for this response!
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#19 Jan 28, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As we've seen in Pennsylvania, there is no need to wait for a ban to be enacted in the state constitution to make a federal challenge in Indiana.
Not sure what they're waiting for.
Maybe they're somehow emotionally or psychologically overwhelmed by the state effort.

It takes massive idiocy to be in Indiana's position and think this effort (the antigay one) will result in something lasting. There's *no way* anyone but a worthless dolt would believe it's going to result in something lasting. It's too obvious that it isn't. This is pure mean-spiritedness.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#20 Jan 28, 2014
1 Corinthians 7:9 English Standard Version (ESV) 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21 Jan 29, 2014
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe they're somehow emotionally or psychologically overwhelmed by the state effort.
It takes massive idiocy to be in Indiana's position and think this effort (the antigay one) will result in something lasting. There's *no way* anyone but a worthless dolt would believe it's going to result in something lasting. It's too obvious that it isn't. This is pure mean-spiritedness.
Agreed.

I guess the anti-gays in Indiana want to be the last state to put a marriage ban in their constitution just before all bans are overturned.

Indiana seems to be in a 10 yr time warp....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Jan 29, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If I recall correctly, Ohio groups have gone of half-cocked a couple of times before. But this is the first time a group has been organized enough to actually get the required signatures.
The pending court rulings in the 6th circuit (which includes Ohio) may finally convince them to shelve their ballot proposal this year, but who knows.

The filing deadline is about 4 months (125 days) prior to the election, so they have until early July to decide whether to file for the 2014 election.

I still haven't been able to find anything in the Ohio constitution which clarifies how long those signatures are valid, and whether they'd have to start the process all over if they decide to wait until the 2016 election.

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 Poll: More faiths embracing gay marriage 2 min RalphB 8
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min The_Box 20,006
News What to watch at SCOTUS gay marriage hearing 29 min WeTheSheeple 1
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 33 min Patrick n Angela 14,614
News Judge rules in favor of printer that refused ga... 33 min WeTheSheeple 7
News The Latest on GOP's 2016 hopefuls: Cruz on gay ... 38 min WeTheSheeple 91
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 40 min Chris Toal 32,064
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 42 min Quest 187
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 9 hr Rose_NoHo 2,138
News Top U.S. court appears on cusp of declaring rig... 13 hr Fa-Foxy 25
Are the mods fair and balanced? Mon Poof1 664
More from around the web