Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indiana House approves constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages
FOX News ^ | 1-28-14 | FOX

Posted on 01/28/2014 2:42:09 PM PST by tcrlaf

Edited on 01/28/2014 3:29:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

INDIANAPOLIS 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.

The proposed ban, which cleared the chamber on 57-40 vote, now heads to the Indiana Senate, where members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are set to take up the issue.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: amendment; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; indiana; marriageamendment; protectmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last
Democrats are screaming bloody murder about this.

They KNOW it means huge numbers of average people, who donb't vote for a living, will turn out to vote against it, as has happened in every state that has been allowed to vote on it.

1 posted on 01/28/2014 2:42:09 PM PST by tcrlaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

I wonder if this thread will be flooded by those who oppose this action.

Most gay marriage threads get taken over by them.


2 posted on 01/28/2014 2:45:03 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Why, why, this is something the TALIBAN would do. Oh wait, the taliban would actually KILL the fagola.


3 posted on 01/28/2014 2:45:25 PM PST by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Only to have some activist judge come along and knock it down.


4 posted on 01/28/2014 2:45:48 PM PST by Thorliveshere (Minnesota Survivor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Congrats to Indiana! Voting for my state’s constitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman was one of the three votes in my life that I was most proud of casting. The other two being for Reagan in ‘88 and for Palin in ‘08.


5 posted on 01/28/2014 2:49:05 PM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
The longer this argument goes on, the less I care about it.

I was married for half my life and was miserable.

Anybody who wants to share that kind of misery is welcome to do so in my book.

6 posted on 01/28/2014 2:49:08 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

What are the chances in the senate, and the guv’s desk?


7 posted on 01/28/2014 2:49:21 PM PST by umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

I thought they already had an amendment.


8 posted on 01/28/2014 2:49:47 PM PST by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66

Oops, I meant Reagan in ‘84.


9 posted on 01/28/2014 2:50:02 PM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Hooray, Indiana! Maybe you’ll lead the way for other states and start the return to sanity.

Of course, all this means is that homo “marriage” is ultimately destined to be decided by the Supreme Court.


10 posted on 01/28/2014 2:54:05 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I only oppose the fact that the Democraps git the camels nose in the tent by removing the civil union ban. Other than that it’s great news. God bless Indiana. Went demo once.... never again!


11 posted on 01/28/2014 2:57:27 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

YEA!


12 posted on 01/28/2014 2:57:35 PM PST by JSDude1 (Defeat Hagan, elect a Constutional Conservative: Dr. Greg Brannon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
>> I wonder if this thread will be flooded by those who oppose this action. Most gay marriage threads get taken over by them. <<

Strange, most of the folks who want to surrender to the gay agenda nationally claim we should "send it back to the states" and wash our hands of it, so they should be happy the STATE of Indiana is doing as they on the STATE level.

13 posted on 01/28/2014 3:11:17 PM PST by BillyBoy (Looking at the weather lately, I could really use some 'global warming' right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

“send it back to the states”

But it SHOULD be a state issue, same way as some states recognize common-law marriage and some don’t, some have different age limits, some allow first cousins to marry, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I’m totally against gay “marriage”. Here in Washington State it got jammed through in spite of the fact that some of us troglodytes said no. I’m just saying the Constitution doesn’t touch on it so the power is not the Feds’ to use.


14 posted on 01/28/2014 3:22:08 PM PST by beelzepug (if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

The Judge Shopping Begins.


15 posted on 01/28/2014 3:28:03 PM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

I wasn’t talking about those, I meant the many here who rather than talking about fighting gay marriage politically and legislatively, have fallen into escapism, and just go on fantasying endlessly about wanting to just remove all marriage/divorce law in America.


16 posted on 01/28/2014 3:28:25 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

begs the question ... why did they not do this years ago?


17 posted on 01/28/2014 3:32:37 PM PST by campaignPete R-CT (Let the dead bury the dead. Let the GOP bury the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
They KNOW it means huge numbers of average people, who don't vote for a living, will turn out to vote against it, as has happened in every state that has been allowed to vote on it.

No, in 2012 voters in Minnesota rejected an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

18 posted on 01/28/2014 3:40:12 PM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug; Impy; EternalVigilance
>> But it SHOULD be a state issue <<

And how well did that work with the slavery issue? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I agree many things should be left up to individual states, but they don't have the "right" to do things like redefine natural law, claiming black people are not humans or call something "marriage" that is biologically impossible.

19 posted on 01/28/2014 3:41:23 PM PST by BillyBoy (Looking at the weather lately, I could really use some 'global warming' right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Amen.


20 posted on 01/28/2014 3:45:02 PM PST by EternalVigilance (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson