Skip to comments.Indiana House approves constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages
Posted on 01/28/2014 2:42:09 PM PST by tcrlafEdited 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 ...
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.
I wonder if this thread will be flooded by those who oppose this action.
Most gay marriage threads get taken over by them.
Why, why, this is something the TALIBAN would do. Oh wait, the taliban would actually KILL the fagola.
Only to have some activist judge come along and knock it down.
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.
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.
What are the chances in the senate, and the guv’s desk?
I thought they already had an amendment.
Oops, I meant Reagan in ‘84.
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.
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!
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.
“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.
The Judge Shopping Begins.
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.
begs the question ... why did they not do this years ago?
No, in 2012 voters in Minnesota rejected an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
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.
Right. In 2012 the radical Left was allowed to turn an electoral corner, because A) the Left poured all their resources into forwarding their immoral agenda in four states. And B) The GOP, under the control of the Romney Republicans, for the first time completely ignored the issue.
Prior to that surrender though, we beat them every single time at the ballot box. More than thirty times in a row, in fact.
"Civil unions" = "gay marriage" with a different label.
Common law marriage for instance, if it is legal, then all states and the federal government recognize it, that goes for the rest of the minor variations among states.
The federal government also has to deal with marriage, and has had it's own laws dealing with it since 1780, the military, immigration families, federal employment, are all areas where the feds have to deal with marriage law.
If Wikipedia can be trusted (a big if), here is how Indiana’s House is divided:
69 Republicans, 31 Demon-Rats
The Indiana House is divided:
39 Republicans, 13 Demon-Rats (apparently 1 vacancy)
Would they also ban same sex marriages between people who are not “gay”?
? What’s your point?
This is a defeat for those that fight for sanctity of marriage. Law had to be passed two years in a row without amendment. By passing an amended law, the cowards both left a door open for civil unions AND delayed the vote by another year making sure it does not go on the ballot in 2014. Dems and RINO’s doing what they always do.
We have gay marriage supporters?
we even have “abolish legal marriage” supporters here, unfortunately
I disagree, if we could ban it federally (can’t currently of course) we absolutely should.
the Constitution guarantees each state a Republican Form of Government ...
that has long gone by the wayside ...
1. One-party rule
2. state Supreme Courts, like CT, declaring gay marriage
over the will of the legislature. Hardly a Rep. Form of Gov
I see now what I left out of post 2.
We do have libertarians/rinos here who support and promote gay marriage, but that isn’t what I meant.
I meant the ones who try to turn these threads into arguments for somehow erasing marriage and divorce law in America, to them it becomes up to each individual and church, and Mosque, and cult, and gay assembly, to just make up their own marriages.
Some of those people also seem to believe that their argument means that THEIR church makes the rule, but the fantasy is that there be no law, no government.
It is a very confusing and politically useless argument, setting the GOP off on that campaign is not going to have any effect on stopping gay marriage and polygamy, besides, the GOP would never adopt such a fantasy anyway.
I’m for fighting it at city hall, at the county seat, at the state level, at the federal level, at every agency, in immigration, in the military, at the UN, and for parachuting leaflets over countries that are succumbing.
Point #1 Gay marriage and same sex marriage aren’t even close to the same thing. Point#2 I didn’t ask you anything
Thank you...hope it passes...
I heard a couple radical gay activists on TV say that they would like that just fine.
and I don’t want to be on the same side as that.
if religious people start forgoing marriage licensing, that’s one thing, but wanting to basically abolish the institution of marriage is insane
People can already make up their own marriage rules as long as they don’t mind it not being legal.
In America religion means any and all religions, for instance polygamous Islam.
Besides, not many people want to not qualify as legally married, that works for short term shacking up, but not for people who intend to build extended families and estates and join the military, or so many other things, and when divorce came, most people would want to go to court and fight under law.
FINALLY!!!! Go Indiana!!
Indiana has a very long, drawn out process for amending their constitution. Two consecutive legislatures must approve the change (every two years), before it can go before voters. This is the second time it has to be approved by the legislature.
Time to take it back then.
See my tagline.
The label is important, making the distinction between those couples of the procreative sort and those couples with same-sex attraction disorder. Marriage is a child-based institution; civil unions are purely for the selfish interests of the disordered couple.
Civil unions would not be just for same-sex couples, but for any combination of couple regardless of relationship. A brother and a sister; a divorced mom and her son; two brothers, etc....
You made a post on a forum. If you didn’t want responses, you should have made a private post using mail.