Indiana Conservatives Revisit Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

  • iGator

    Posts: 150

    Jan 14, 2009 2:48 AM GMT
    Advocate.comIndiana lawmakers who oppose same-sex marriage said Monday they would launch another effort to ban such unions with a constitutional amendment, reports The Indianapolis Star. Rep. Dave Cheatham, a Democrat, and Rep. Eric Turner, a Republican, said they would both sponsor measures with identical language in the house, and GOP senator Marlin Stutzman said he would sponsor legislation in the senate.


    This is nothing new...but what I don't understand is what is it about us that would cause both a Democrat and a Republican to come after us...


    Discuss....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 3:13 AM GMT
    I'm suprised to see that a dem. got in on this too !!! I'll bet it is for building a base of voters so they can stay in office. I doubt it being because of some heartfelt need they have within themselves to "save the sanctity of marriage". Ignorance (religion) is at the root of all of these actions, don't you think?.
  • Freddo

    Posts: 246

    Jan 14, 2009 4:28 AM GMT
    Yeah, I saw this too... I found it rather diheartening that legislators are doing this. It never is about really the "sanctity of marriage". If they really cared about that they would illegalize divorce, plain and simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 4:37 AM GMT
    They are wasting their time....the whole slew of amendments are gonna get tossed out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. You can't deprive one group of citizens from participating in society no good civil reason.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 4:46 AM GMT
    Caslon8000 saidThey are wasting their time....the whole slew of amendments are gonna get tossed out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. You can't deprive one group of citizens from participating in society no good civil reason.

    What Supreme Court? The one with 2 conservative Bush appointees? It'll never happen. And with 37 states having anti-gay constitutional amendments already in place, this court can read the political writing on the wall. I'm surprised to read you even suggest something so impossible.

    As for your argument, we once never COULD deprive citizens of rights. But now we can. The Supreme Court accepted it under Bush in numerous ways, especially with the heretofore unconstitutional provisions contained in the Patriot Act.

    You are very behind the times. You are thinking old Constitution. This Court has accepted a new version, in which gays will find no protections whatsoever. And even Obama and a new Congress will not change that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 5:09 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    Caslon8000 saidThey are wasting their time....the whole slew of amendments are gonna get tossed out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. You can't deprive one group of citizens from participating in society no good civil reason.

    What Supreme Court? The one with 2 conservative Bush appointees? It'll never happen. And with 37 states having anti-gay constitutional amendments already in place, this court can read the political writing on the wall. I'm surprised to read you even suggest something so impossible.

    As for your argument, we once never COULD deprive citizens of rights. But now we can. The Supreme Court accepted it under Bush in numerous ways, especially with the heretofore unconstitutional provisions contained in the Patriot Act.

    You are very behind the times. You are thinking old Constitution. This Court has accepted a new version, in which gays will find no protections whatsoever. And even Obama and a new Congress will not change that.

    au contraire, mon ami
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 5:24 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    Caslon8000 saidThey are wasting their time....the whole slew of amendments are gonna get tossed out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. You can't deprive one group of citizens from participating in society no good civil reason.

    What Supreme Court? The one with 2 conservative Bush appointees? It'll never happen. And with 37 states having anti-gay constitutional amendments already in place, this court can read the political writing on the wall. I'm surprised to read you even suggest something so impossible.

    As for your argument, we once never COULD deprive citizens of rights. But now we can. The Supreme Court accepted it under Bush in numerous ways, especially with the heretofore unconstitutional provisions contained in the Patriot Act.

    You are very behind the times. You are thinking old Constitution. This Court has accepted a new version, in which gays will find no protections whatsoever. And even Obama and a new Congress will not change that.


    Vespa just won at the internet!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 5:24 AM GMT
    Caslon8000 saidau contraire, mon ami

    Pourquoi, mon cher?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 5:26 AM GMT
    GwgTrunks saidVespa just won at the internet!

    funny pictures of cats with captions
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 5:31 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    Caslon8000 saidau contraire, mon ami

    Pourquoi, mon cher?

    None of those amendments has been tested in court. They will all clash with the equal protection clause. If they allow this, then there is no limit to what a majority can do to a minority .....reinstitute slavery..... whatever......and the court wont be able to tolerate that. The dominoes will start falling in California.

    It is you who are thinking old constitution. Bush is out. Obama is in. ...starting with Gitmo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 5:43 AM GMT
    Caslon8000 said
    Red_Vespa said
    Caslon8000 saidau contraire, mon ami

    Pourquoi, mon cher?

    None of those amendments has been tested in court. They will all clash with the equal protection clause. If they allow this, then there is no limit to what a majority can do to a minority .....reinstitute slavery..... whatever......and the court wont be able to tolerate that. The dominoes will start falling in California.

    It is you who are thinking old constitution. Bush is out. Obama is in. ...starting with Gitmo.

    The 13th Amendment prevents slavery, so that's not an issue here. This current court will tolerate whatever it wishes to tolerate.

    Past courts have tolerated the internment of Japanese-Americans, the suspension of the First Amendment (WWI), and many things that ought to have been protected by the Constitution. That document is what the Justices make of it, not what you would like it to be. It is their document to define, not ours. And their current mix is not favorable to gay rights.
  • ep83

    Posts: 144

    Jan 14, 2009 5:44 AM GMT
    Red_VespaWhat Supreme Court?


    Actually the current makeup of the Court is not as hostile to gay rights as it is to other civil rights and civil liberties. Roberts and Alito replaced O'Connor and Rehnquist, who were not our friends. The man to watch is Kennedy, and he is the author of the two most important gay rights decisions in the past 20 years.

    Romer v. Evans struck down a Colorado ballot measure that forbid municipalities from passing anti-discrimination measures intended to protect gays and lesbians. Lawrence v. Texas struck down state bans on sodomy as a violation of the right to privacy and equal protection.

    This is not to say that the Court would strike down bans on marriage equality, but it is not as lost a cause as it initially seems. The important thing is to use Kennedy's past opinions to show how recognizing marriage equality is the logical conclusion of his argument. His is the only vote that matters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 5:55 AM GMT
    ep83 saidRomer v. Evans struck down a Colorado ballot measure that forbid municipalities from passing anti-discrimination measures intended to protect gays and lesbians. Lawrence v. Texas struck down state bans on sodomy as a violation of the right to privacy and equal protection.

    Neither of those decisions was an endorsement of gay rights per se. As you note, Lawrence was about privacy, and Romer was about the unconstitutional restriction of voting rights in general. Neither set precedents based solely on gay rights. I don't see them as predictors of a successful Supreme Court decision on the issue of gay marriage rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 8:16 AM GMT
    You can also include the case Loving v Virginia. This US Supreme Court declared laws banning racially mixed marriages as unconstitutional and also established marriage as a civil right.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia


    If you have a better example than wikipedia, post it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 10:53 AM GMT
    The Democrats take us for granted. I can't find the quote from Howard Dean, but in a nutshell he said that we have no where else to go but the Democratic party. The Democrats still talk in a vague code on gay issues such as marriage, tax law and the militiary. Look at what happened in Ca. The state voted for Obama, yet significant numbers of Democratic voters supported Prop 8. The few hundred Log Cabin Republicans who voted for Bush in FL in 2000 is what caused Bush to win.

    I have yet to see Obama name anyone at the highest levels who is gay. Hell, even Bush named a gay man as an Ambassador, albeit to a minor post. Obama could name a gay man as Ambassador to the Court of St. James, but does anyone think he will?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2009 11:11 AM GMT
    I think the courts should stay out of this--though I certainly liked what they did in Cali.

    Think on it though: There were some in Cali who could care less about gay rights either way. But they voted for Prop 8 because they didn't want the courts to override the people's vote--whether or not the court was being fair.

    Roe v. Wade: Look how much trouble that got us in. The Moral Majority and the big push by envagelicals into politics was mainly statred because of Roe v. Wade. I have heard Falwell say that before.

    If the courts continue to override the people... people will get mad--even though the courts may be right.

    Just know that our opponents are organized... more organized andrallied than the gay rights community will ever be (i.e. gays don't have places to meet everyweek to discuss their views, the religious right does--churches). When the religious right is overrided, they get more fired up.

    So, should we go through the courts for change? Or through the legislature? Or grassroots movement through the people? The latter two will take years longer, but the people are who matter the most. If we change the mind's of the people, we are assured the longevity of victory.

    In the mean time, we work hard... and we suffer for future generations of GLBT folks.

    PS: Keep you eyes on New England this fall... Five out of the six New England states have pro-gay initatives on the ballot this fall... Including gay marriage in Maine, my home state--crosses fingers
  • Tiller66

    Posts: 380

    Feb 12, 2009 7:20 PM GMT
    I really think that the right way to change the whole equality of marriage is going to hit a brick wall as long as it is based in religon.It should be based completly in the law by passing a law that makes all marriage past/peresent/and future a civil union.It will make everyone equil.I know that to some it would seem like that it's second class but if it was the only class how can it be second.I still want nor require any validation from a religous system that thincks I'm a sinner every moment I live.The first thing they all say is that GOD loves everyone if it's true why the opposition to anyone getting married.Now the thing that gets under thier skin is becuase they know weather they like or not how many "str8" men use the gay community for thier own pleasure and that if being gay had all the same rights as being str8 they wouldf have no chance to keep the partners they got.icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2009 7:54 PM GMT
    I don't think anyone should really be too surprised. Politicians are in it for themselves and their campaigns most of the time. It's a rare few who are truly beneficent. Even Obama, who champions civil liberties, isn't willing to go the extra mile and support gay rights directly. Everything has to be vague and noncommittal.

    I'm from Indiana, and it really doesn't stun me that a democrat from Indiana would be against gay rights. There are a lot of good people from Indiana, but I can honestly say there are many simple people who feel scared of social change and just want lifestyles and moral values to be homogenous and "godly." If democrats used the same rhetoric in Indiana that they use in say California they would never get elected.