tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post702686340695536030..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-49250314515667486702008-05-17T20:37:00.000-05:002008-05-17T20:37:00.000-05:00David, I would add to what AI has said that SJR7 was full of a number of legal twists and turns, especially in its second sentence, that many in the legal acadmic community (including some who ideologically could in no way be considered "liberal") found very troublesome and capable of being interpreted in ways that would create significants amounts of unintended (or in some cases intended) mischief.<BR/><BR/>Yet the constant drumbeat from the sponsors was simply "let the people vote".....yes, vote on a shoddy legislative product that the proponents claimed would only keep "activist judges" from imposing same-sex marriage, but which in reality would also muzzle future legislators and do a lot more.<BR/><BR/>It was once suggested to pro-SJR7 organizations that they join in a statement to legislators and voters that said: "If you don't fully understand all the words, then don't vote for it." Funny, the silence from that quarter was deafening. I think I know why.Don Sherfickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15239859126284734712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-34547433989000142142008-05-17T20:17:00.000-05:002008-05-17T20:17:00.000-05:00We are lucky that there was no referendum on desegregation, women's right to vote, interracial marriage, the ending of slavery, or many other subjects......sometimes doing what is morally right means protecting the minority opinion.artfugginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05364503656694166926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-44743906082795287542008-05-17T19:02:00.000-05:002008-05-17T19:02:00.000-05:00David, We're not talking about a simple referencum. We're talking about a mean-spirited amendment, which will write discrimination against a group of persons into Indiana's Bill of Rights. The cavalier attitude you and Gov. Daniels show in stripping away other people's rights is a perfect example of tyranny by the majority. We have a constitution which defines the rights of individuals because our founders knew and feared a tyrannical majority would take away the rights of unpopular minorities when left to their own devices. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to ensure liberty and freedom for all. To use it as a hammer against any group is simply unacceptable and should be discouraged and fought at all expense.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-34557098544440013672008-05-17T16:34:00.000-05:002008-05-17T16:34:00.000-05:00In this country everyone has a right to express their own opinions.<BR/>Everyone has the right to express their idea’s to our state leaders and to support those that comes close to our idea’s. That does not mean that you are wrong and it does not mean that they are wrong.<BR/><BR/>Mitch Daniels state that he would be for a constitution amendment to ban gay marriage. Do you expect him to stand down from his conviction on this subject? I don’t see that happening and I look for him to take the election in November. Why is there such a fuss <BR/>About this bill anyway? It only gives the citizens of Indiana the right to vote to banned gay marriage. If you were not afraid of this passing on the ballot and the people would their say, there would not be such of a fight on this issue. Don't the citizens of this state have that right?David Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117618040592226578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-81109600651670927322008-05-17T09:24:00.001-05:002008-05-17T09:24:00.001-05:00Why would you expect Eric Miller and the Indiana GOP do anything different. That is how they operate.artfugginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05364503656694166926noreply@blogger.com