Comments on Advance Indiana™: Senate Nonsense On Gay Marriage Amendment

Who would stoop so low as to debase themselves wit...

2008-01-19T19:57:00.000-05:00

Who would stoop so low as to debase themselves with Miller? I'd pity that one, while applauding his unmasking the "wizard" or the leader of the Unholy Trinity.

Hasn't anyone caught Eric Miller in an same-sex se...

2008-01-19T19:32:00.000-05:00

Hasn't anyone caught Eric Miller in an same-sex sexual act yet? I think we all know how it ends with these types.

Christians aren't looking to deny Constitutional r...

2008-01-19T07:59:00.000-05:00

Christians aren't looking to deny Constitutional rights, but insure the sanctity of marriage, a religious institution that can only be truly sanctioned within the traditions of faith (vs. the toll, fee structure of government).

Some Christian (among others) churches want to be able to marry adherents who are the same sex, therefore your argument fails.

Bredon, and others, who think Pelath's action kill...

2008-01-19T06:42:00.000-05:00

Bredon, and others, who think Pelath's action kills this horrid Amendment, had best study House and Senate rules. They are a Byzantine maze of conflicting potential actions.

There is nothing in either chamber's rules that would prohibit a suspension of the rules. Under such an action, anything can be brought up. Even a Joint Resolution.

Of course, such an unusual action would invite a lawsuit should the Amendment mechanism (i.e., public referendum) pass the legislature.

And as for 6:24's belief, that all anyone wants is a public vote: do you want every important issue decided by a referendum? Would we not then become a plebicite, having our own votes ratify all important issues.

If so, why have a legislature? I mean, I detest most of the legislature's actions. For most of my life, as a group, they're a motley collection of village idiots and a few thinkers.

But I'd never alter the Constitution to remove their power to meet biennially and ruminate over the issues of the day. We can call them, write them or visit them and tell them what we think.

Referenda are reserved for only a few issues. Rightly so. Our federal and state Constitutional framers were bright folks.

Whether I marry my partner of ten years is not an issue worthy of referenda. Whether a majority of my fellow Hoosiers want a public referendum is irrelevant. Ouor COnstitution is a fragile historical document. It needs to be amended only when absolutely necessary. A current culture war does not rise to the level of Amendment.

Our children and grandchildren will thank us later, for killing this today.

6:24, get over yourself.

They are pandering. There's more to the vote than ...

2008-01-19T01:15:00.000-05:00

They are pandering.

There's more to the vote than this, I think. If SJR-7 doesn't come out of house rules before the final day to adopt committee reports (which may be next week; I'm not sure), and there is no SJR-7 to come over from the senate, SJR-7 is dead next week. It's a joint resolution, so it can't be amended into anything.

But if the senate passes a version of their SJR-7 before the committee report deadline, it will switch houses with the rest of the bills and at least be theoretically available for action later in the session.

Which is moot if Pelath keeps it killed, of course, but it will die later rather than sooner. And the proponents may hope for a miracle or last minute conversion...

if the general assembly doesn't pass sjr 7 this ye...

2008-01-19T00:54:00.000-05:00

if the general assembly doesn't pass sjr 7 this year, it will really be a win - win for both opponents and proponents. for the opponents, not having this amendment will make their lives less onerous. life's hard enough without the government saying what rights you can have and not have. for the proponents, well, this will give them the opportunity to continue raising money for their so-called christian causes.

2008-01-18T23:50:00.000-05:00

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Sadly, marriage/ union / or partner right will be ...

2008-01-18T23:40:00.000-05:00

Sadly, marriage/ union / or partner right will be denied to many long-standing couples regardless of what is decided in this General Assembly, due to Indiana's DOMA.

But a new generation feels differently. If a future General Assembly changes its mind, they would be constricted by this amendment.

Look, I rejoice at Pelath's declarative statement, and I believe he is a man of his word. But God Help me, I'll not believe this thing is dead until the session ends.

EVER VIGILANT

In a blog where thought generally reigns, there's ...

2008-01-18T23:03:00.000-05:00

In a blog where thought generally reigns, there's significant failure of intellect HERE, on the topic of "Gay Marriage." The heterosexual orientation of the oxymoronic description "Gay Marriage" should be a clue that these are unique, contractual relationships, committed but different than marriage. The right to associate is constitutionally protected, see also the 1964 Civil Rights Act- but READ them & understand that gay Americans HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Rights are common to ALL people. Christians aren't looking to deny Constitutional rights, but insure the sanctity of marriage, a religious institution that can only be truly sanctioned within the traditions of faith (vs. the toll, fee structure of government). As any lawyer can attest, couples, in a union or marriage, need to have wills (living & otherwise), to insure their wishes are respected. It ain't just the Christian heteros who are wasting time on this "issue."

this is why you should be a democrat

2008-01-18T22:29:00.000-05:00

this is why you should be a democrat

Don, I posed the question to an attorney for the S...

2008-01-18T22:01:00.000-05:00

Don, I posed the question to an attorney for the Senate who said he believed a vote in the Senate would not be required this year to send it to the ballot if the House passed the same version of SJR-7. You can bet the proponents would sue to get it on the ballot if the House passed it and the Senate did nothing. There's no way in hell they would lose in court under the reading of Article 16 of the state's constitution.

Gary, I have always been under the impression that...

2008-01-18T21:59:00.000-05:00

Gary, I have always been under the impression that if an ordinary piece of legislation passes but one house of the Indiana legislature in the first session of a two year elected term, it must start all over again in the second session, and simply cant be picked up by the other house. But I don't see that in so many words in Article 4 on the Legislature in the Indiana Constitution. Is it governed by the rules of procedure? Standing alone, Article 16 does appear by its terms to say that such isn't the case with proposed constitutional amendments, but then I also believe that there is language in the rules (as well as Article 4) referring to both "bills" and "joint resolutions"; proposed amendments are labeled "joint resolutions". Any further thoughts on this?

Indiana Equality Action AlertAsk members of the Se...

2008-01-18T21:22:00.000-05:00

Indiana Equality Action Alert

Ask members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote NO on SJR-7!

http://eqfed.org/campaign/SJR7Senate2008_VoteNo/

Scott Pelath of the House just announced that SJR-...

2008-01-18T21:06:00.000-05:00

Scott Pelath of the House just announced that SJR-7 will get no hearing or vote -- serious legislators have more important issues to deal with in the Short Session such as PROPERTY TAXES.

Look 6:24, there is more buried in the second line...

2008-01-18T20:37:00.000-05:00

Look 6:24, there is more buried in the second line of that amendment than the most learned judge in Indiana could figure out. Phrases like "legal incidents" of marriage and "construe" will tie the courts up in knots for years.

Even IF Indiana needed such an amendment (due to an outbreak of gay marriages in Vevay and Ligonier and Wabash), THIS language would be fatally flawed. In the end, it actually ( and purposefully) ties the hands of the legislature to give ANY benefits to unmarried couples.

The majority of even the Dems in the House would vote in a heartbeat for the first line, that marriage is only between one man and one woman (because they like being elected, not because they are convinced rightwingers). But they recognized that ambiguous langauge should not be shoved into the foundational document of the state.

Check out www.stoptheamendment.org or www.indianaequality.org for further references.

I imagine that he has a "HuckabeeFor President" bu...

2008-01-18T19:53:00.000-05:00

I imagine that he has a "Huckabee
For President" bumper sticker on the bumper of his car. I have had it with these zealots and their bible thumping......
There is too much more on Indiana's plate than to have some right wing evangelical tying up precious legislative time on a issue that doesn't really mean anything either way to most Hoosiers....
Lets move on.

Sarge
Indianapolis

Speaking as someone who regularly reads AI because...

2008-01-18T18:25:00.000-05:00

Speaking as someone who regularly reads AI because it is so informative...I believe the purpose of the resolution is to give Hoosiers the opportunity to vote on this issue. It's not just a few "religious zealots" who would like a voice, in this case, on marriage.

Speaking as someone who regularly reads AI because...

2008-01-18T18:24:00.000-05:00

Long could easily be toppled in a primary by an an...

2008-01-18T18:22:00.000-05:00

Long could easily be toppled in a primary by an anti-tax opponent. His constituents were stung hard by huge property tax hikes. The guy is so arrogant he can't see it.

This is all so damned sad.And so unnecessary.Maybe...

2008-01-18T18:10:00.000-05:00

This is all so damned sad.

And so unnecessary.

Maybe the Senate and House Republicans can get Tony Dungy to schilll for them. I'm betting he'll have a lot of spare time on his hands soon, and we already know how he feel son this issue.

How do we gwt the repubs out of our bedrooms??? ...

2008-01-18T17:41:00.001-05:00

How do we gwt the repubs out of our bedrooms??? They are your people, Gary. How do we do it??

They are pandering. Their own legal counsel agrees...

2008-01-18T17:41:00.000-05:00

They are pandering. Their own legal counsel agrees with my opinion.

Gary, I assume they are reading the law differentl...

2008-01-18T17:02:00.000-05:00

Gary, I assume they are reading the law differently and think that the Senate has to pass it again. Or does that just mean that Sen. Repubs are panderbears to get Eric Miller off their backs. Or will the Repubs try to use this to smear the House Dems?

Lots of options there.