Section 38. Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.I do not speak for the Party, nor, do I imagine they would ever ask me to. What I am, is a Democrat.
I don't get it, pure and simple. I cannot understand why anyone cares who gets married to whom. Much less can I grasp even a glimmer of why some people feel compelled to post preemptive strikes against personal freedoms in our State Constitution.
The unfettered Republican majorities in the Indiana House and Senate, have pushed forward this immoral and unAmerican piece of legislation while pretending to singularly occupy the moral high ground and be the stalwarts for what made America great. They are wrong. They are out of step with history. The Party that revels in slogans like "Don't Tread On Me", often revels in treading on others.
Passage is certain. I don't know if Governor Daniels has to sign off on it, and if so, what impact a potential run for the White House might have on a veto or not.
At least all Constitutional amendments must be passed by two successively constituted General Assemblies and ratified by a majority of voters. If speed bumps exist, they are the next two elections and the voters who make it to the polls.
Posts
14 comments:
We seem to be deep in tea party territory here in Indiana. The ease with which it is flying through doesn't shock me, not nearly as much as it saddens me. The invalidation of these relationships will lead inevitably to discrimination by insurance carriers, service providers of all kinds, et al. One simple act will disenfranchise an entire set of people. There are many, many things that flow from the recognition of a relationship, even the right to claim a body in some states. It's not hard to see the long term results of this from a mile away. Do GOP lawmakers not see it, or is it that they just don't care?
Must be tough being a liberal Democrat these days. As your man Obama used to say, "There was an election, and you lost".
I've been married for over 30 years to the same woman. Why she puts up with me, I don't know. :)
Indiana has one of the highest divorce rates in the nation. http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html . Marriage isn't a Hoosier value.
Ronald Rodgers
It's bad enough walking in on your parents having sex. Can you imagine walking in and seeing your gay parents getting down?
anon 2:12 - its not enough to cause a ban on heterosexual marriage and it shouldn't be sufficient to ban homosexual marriage - or civil unions or partnerships.
On this of all days - lets support love and monogamy, for all those lucky enough to find it.
I don't get it, there are reasons that there are men and women. Do we agree or disagree that homosexuality is normal? I don't think it is. And no I don't believe we choose, I believe we are born with certain desires. But do we have to act on them? And I really don't care what adults do in private, or who or what with...
Your own confusion is the basis for the current bias society has against gay relationships. You said that a person is born with certain desires. So it must be normal for a certain undetermined percentage of the population to be so inclined. All people are born with the desire to love. You say gay people shouldn't act on their desires. You are setting up a whole segment of the population for lifelong emotional deprivation. You sound like a sensible person, how about trying to resolve your own conflicts with this issue and let gay people learn to form loving relationships on their own? The text of this proposed constitutional change is horrifying and nothing less. Are Hoosiers really that barbaric and uncivilized?
Former Decatur Township Teacher
God made Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. Self-loathing gays can get together and be as monogamous as they chose to be. They don't need government sanction to do so. I wouldn't be opposed to to recognizing civil unions, so they can claim their partners for survivorship benefits, and health insurance coverage. I would hope that any such insurance coverage would not extend to HIV treatments. I don't want to have to pay for their avante gard STD's.
anon 1:36 - the legislation would ban all agreements that even look like marriage. Although civil unions are not legal in Indiana, I agree with you that they should be. This law would go beyond all of that and make illegal even contracts on how to pass on property, who can visit ill partners as family members, and so on. This really is much farther reaching than most people would go. Plus, legislators want it in the constitution so that it can't be undone quickly.
If we agree that gays are born that way and we also agree that it is not normal, then why shouldn't they try to ignor these feelings and have a normal life..
anon 8:48 - WE don't agree about the 'normalcy' of being gay. I, personally, DO believe it is normal. It may not be the majority who favor homosexual over heterosexual intimacy. But, it is normal none the less.
The beauty of the American experience, is that our laws preclude the imposition of the majority view over the minority's rights.
Indiana lawmakers want to do just the opposite - impose their narrow life view on others.
That is why I called it unAmerican.
Okay so we say yes to gays then who is next, the pedophiles? Then the people who want to marry animals.
anon 8:19 - that's a ridiculous leap of pseudo-logic.
Post a Comment