tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post115551765898797783..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1158773564548720562006-09-20T12:32:00.000-05:002006-09-20T12:32:00.000-05:00So when the people get to decide this issue (as they should since they and their elected legislators are the proper and legitimate authorities) then its 'divisive' and 'diversionary', but when a few judges usurp power over the issue, and abuse their power in rendering some absurd imposition of gay marriage/civil unions, then its okay? Do you think that is somehow unifying?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1155578072585738382006-08-14T12:54:00.000-05:002006-08-14T12:54:00.000-05:00Let's be honest with GLBT voters and realize that SOME form of a marriage amendment WILL be passed in the next General Assembly. Even if the Dems take control, they can hardly afford to stonewall this in the House, while the Senate blithely passes the Wicked Senator from the North (Hershman) version as they did in 2005. <BR/><BR/>The key will be what form will it take? Will it delete the ill-defined and egregious second line -- section B? Will it be even more harsh? <BR/><BR/>If it is changed even one line-letter, word-- the clock starts again and forces it to go before another general assembly -- pushing the vote off til 2010.<BR/><BR/>Which Dem wouldn't rather have the 2008 (Presidential and Governor's races) election WITHOUT a marriage amendment on it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1155568889798666282006-08-14T10:21:00.000-05:002006-08-14T10:21:00.000-05:00That's just great. <BR/><BR/>Happy dance.<BR/><BR/>Two possible strategies: move a comma, making it a change. Or, refuse to call it down whatsoever. <BR/><BR/>All big IFs--IF the House goes Dmeocratic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1155567544500429932006-08-14T09:59:00.000-05:002006-08-14T09:59:00.000-05:00You are correct anonymous. Article 16 of the Indiana Constiution requires approval by consecutive sessions of the General Assembly. It is also the case that if the wording is altered in the second session, the process would have to begin anew.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1155566026606017262006-08-14T09:33:00.000-05:002006-08-14T09:33:00.000-05:00AI: I think the following is true (please correct if not true)<BR/><BR/>In this state, a COnstitutional Amendment must pass two separate sessions of (America's Worst State) Legislature. We're not waiting on the second piece of that.<BR/><BR/>If the Dems recapture the House, and this issue isn't called up for two years, it has to start again at square one in 2009.<BR/><BR/>Which is a good ting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com