Wednesday, January 22, 2014
House Elections Committee Votes 9-3 Along Party Lines To Advance Marriage Discrimination Amendment To Full House
House Speaker Brian Bosma got his wish. All nine Republican members of the House Elections Committee, including at least one closeted homosexual, voted for HJR-3, the proposed constitutional amendment that would enshrine the state's statutory prohibition on the legal recognition of marriages between persons of the same sex in the constitution's bill of rights. The committee's three Democratic members present for the vote all voted against the amendment. How some of these people can look themselves in the mirror is beyond me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Who is the closeted legislator?
Yeah I'd kind of like a name to that one as well. Don't worry, closeted gay republican, you are SO NOT ALONE.
How some of these people can look themselves in the mirror is beyond me. Loved this at the end of your blog...Waiting and watching...Many are...Justice is watching...
If I were the democrats I would make sure that the Amendment passes out of the House and then it would be interesting to see how it would fair in the State Senate! What do you think Gary or Paul?
I'm not convinced it will pass the House and the Senate. Even if it passes, I think it will lose at the ballot box in November. Republicans are going to get blindsided by people turning out on that issue and it's going to cause them to lose races they'd otherwise win. This is just not a popular road to go down.
I respectfully take issue with calling this a "Marriage Discrimination Amendment". This does not discriminate against anyone. The word "discriminate" means to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs, rather than according to actual merit.
In this instance, there is no person, thing, or group that one belongs that is receiving any distinction in favor of or against. This proposal is to be EQUALLY applied to all Hoosiers.
It merely defines something. That definition does not favor or deny any person or group any privilege, it merely defines what a marriage is. In my humble opinion, it is equal to all Hoosiers in every way by establishing a clealy defined definition of what marriage is. No matter who you are, the proposed definition is the same for all.
Consider this: Why do all local news televisions in the USA have a man and woman as anchors?
Is every local television station "discriminatory"?
Anon, 6:06, Perhaps in your eyes a law that deprives a benefit or metes out a punishment to a person based solely on their sexual orientation is not discriminatory, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held otherwise.
Gary, Don't cite the Supreme Court as any sort of moral example.
To them, killing 55 million unborn is fine, despite the clear obligation of a government to protect life, and gay marriage is legal, though gay marriage is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution nor never contemplated in any writings discussing the essence or concept of marriage.
The list of the Supreme Court's disappointments is long. They're hardly a moral authority.
From The Guardian Website: "The attorney general of Virginia has announced that the state will no longer defend its constitutional ban on gay marriage in the courts, siding instead with the challengers." "As attorney general, I cannot and will not defend laws that violate Virginians' rights. The commonwealth will be siding with the plaintiffs in this case and with every other Virginia couple whose right to marry is being denied."http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/23/virginia-attorney-general-gay-marriage-ban-mark-herring.
Herring acknowledged that he had changed his position on the issue. As a state senator in 2006, he voted against marriage equality. He said that he has always spoken out against discrimination: "I was wrong for not applying it to marriage," he said, acknowledging that his children had played a part in changing his mind.
===============================
Really, Anon 6:06, Just tell us all you're really Ginny Cain (or perhaps some closeted member of the state legislature).
You really need to tune out Rush Limbaugh (I've heard him make the same arguments) and get your nose out of the Bible and maybe read the Constitution...and a dictionary.
Nick, gay marriage is in the Constitution?
Flogger, most elected officials are required to take an oath to "support and defend their state constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of office."
Has the attorney general of Virginia violated his oath of office, abdicated his office as an elected official, and engaged in malfeasance?
It appears that the Republican Party has finally told you that they despise you and every other gay person in Indiana. The fools who list themselves as gay Republicans are either masochists or fools. Face facts, the majority of Republicans hate you and every other LGBT person. Sad.
Anon 6:06 is right about the definition of marriage but incorrect about the Constitutional right to associate & contract; aka civil unions.
No common language, no common law; protecting common language is a reasonable, civil idea. No group has a "right" to impose itself or alter common language.
However, inserting language that prohibits rights to associate or contract seems to sabotage the very civil cause of common language, of that which is known to be marriage.
While he cautions against it; not even God prevents his own from the commission of sin. What is it that makes fellow sinners believe they're empowered to go beyond common language & insist otherwise?
To the extent the state has a registry function related to contracts, disposition of property & care decisions of those within a household; must they be married to enjoy the protection of those contracts?
It seems the Christian ideal is one of a sinners journey in self governing the soul (sovereignty); unlike other beliefs which assert governance over the souls of all & others (secular
'progressivism," etc.), irrespective of shared belief.
Post a Comment