I had coffee with Scott last week and we were talking about what might happen when the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage gets reintroduced in 2008. I became aware and involved in the issue when I realized the horrible impact it would have on people who are close to me and the dangerous precedent it would be setting – it was voted down by the House Committee thankfully earlier this year. Serendipitously this article appeared at Indystar.com today. Scott made a very good point and I wholeheartedly agree – why are politicians focusing so much time and money on this issue when Indiana (and Indianapolis) have far more dire and pressing issues like crime, state-wide financial crises and the tax debacle that need to be dealt with? It’s beyond absurd that the likes of Eric Miller and Brandt Hershman are pursuing the issue again given the much more pressing issues we should be dealing with. The amendment is all sorts of wrong for a variety of reasons: Negative impact on partner benefits, wholesale discrimination against a group of people actually being written into a constitution, ironically making it unconstitutional by it’s very nature and the creation of a horrid loophole in domestic violence laws to name a few. I oppose it 110% but I’m really irritated that the politicians are already focusing time and energy on the amendment when Indiana has larger issues that need to be solved. I’m not surprised which is a sad statement on the politics of this state.
Want More?
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos -
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
Kate on Comments Rules of the Road and… maggie on Comments Rules of the Road and… Amy on Comments Rules of the Road and… Ricky on Comments Rules of the Road and… Amy on It’s All About the Crazy… Tags
acupuncture Amish puppy mills animal rescue Barack Obama Dancing with the Stars dating death dog rescue dogs eldercare friends garden gardening Garfield Park gratitude great pyrenees great pyrenees puppies green living grief herniated discs Hillary Clinton HSI Humane Society of Indianapolis igpr Indiana Indianapolis Indianapolis Animal Care and Control indianapolis great pyrenees rescue Marie Osmond marines meme military recruitment military recruitment tactics Mutt Strut neighbors Politics public transportation puppies puppy mills Relationships shelters snow stroke The Bachelor tomatoesCategory Cloud
-
What I’m Doing
Archives
Meta
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, what you want is something akin to “legal unions”. I am all for legal unions, but marriage is something that traditionally is a religious joining of a man and woman.
Why are politicians paying attention to it? Because it gets votes no matter what side of the aisle you are on, for or against.
Homosexuals would be far better off not pushing their lifestyles into the traditional lives of the majority of America.
History has shown us that any time a minority, aggressively shoves their ideals onto the majority, it will be met with opposition.
The sooner homosexuals realize that, and stop forcing themselves into every facet of traditional American life, the better off everyone will be.
“The sooner homosexuals realize that, and stop forcing themselves into every facet of traditional American life, the better off everyone will be.”
Honestly, the nerve of some people.
TRM – I don’t consider a person or group of people (minority or not) asking to have the rights granted to them by the Constitution and Bill of Rights observed and honored to be “forcing themselves” on anyone or anything. History has also shown *repeatedly* that if people don’t stand up for their ideals and rights, they risk having them violated and taken away.
Please tell me where in the constitution or bill of rights it mentions gay marriage. Don’t get me wrong. I am all for civil unions. But why does the gay community feel the need for everyone to welcome them with open arms? Its just not going to happen…
Marriage is a religious thing, show me in any holy book where it says this is ok…
I am not a christian or subscribe to any man made religion, but I do understand them and know it is not condoned…
But why does the Conservative/Christian/Evangelical community feel the need for everyone to welcome them with open arms? It’s just not going to happen…
If marriage is a religious institution, why does the State have any part in it– whether it be between two opposite sex partners or two same sex partners? TRM, would you be willing to accept a civil (heterosexual) union from the state? Seems to me like that’s the natural conclusion to the argument you’re making.
Actually, that would be fine by me. Civil unions for all– take state-sanctioned marriage away from the straight people.
Jay you may have me there, doubt it, but maybe, anyone who is convinced they are right is bound to think everyone else should eventually feel the same way… uuhhh yeah, thats what I meant ??
Melody, I beleive states became involved in marriage for the sole purpose of divorces. Or maybe some cousins in the hills were creating babies with web feet and a natural talent for frog giggin and banjo playin,, dunno.
And would I be willing to have a civil union? ABSOLUTELY. But remember I am not a christian. But you are confusng the two. As I said before Marriage, by definition is a union of man and woman before the witness of G-D. A civil union is a “license” for legalities, credit sharing, ownership matters and of course the big D…
And of course, just to remind you all, I am always right…:)
Then as long as the state confuses civil unions with marriages (by calling them marriages), I will continue to demand rights for my partner and I that are equal to those you enjoy in state-sanctioned marriage– even if that means I have to use the inaccurate language. I’d prefer not to forego my rights because of lousy semantics.
The world will be a much better place to live in when our parents generation finally dies.
If the Constitution doesn’t say anything about gay marriage, there’s no reason to amend it now to say they shouldn’t have legal rights. What a waste of time, energy and taxpayers’ money!
I know I am in hostile territory and the lone male pig here, but I must say… missanthropy and wanderingkatie are puhhhhrty!!
Political diversion, baby. A lot of scared reps running around worried that their asses will be the next ones voted out of office by people still pissed off at property tax. It’s classic misdirection. “Hey – look over here!!! QUEERS!!! THEY WANT TO BE LIKE YOU!!! THAT’S BAD!!! (please, please, please forget about the property tax thing).”
I don’t get the whole “I’m for civil union but not marriage” thing. Aren’t we talking about semantics at that point? Call it what you want – marriage, civil union, 2 dudes/1 cup, whatever – I’m talking about rights. If two legal adults decide they want to enter into a partnership in which they share property rights, sexual orientation shouldn’t be a factor. Just sign the damn paper, Mr. Mayor, and stay out of my business.
If nothing else, the whole gay marriage debate has made me realize what a BIZARRE concept marriage is in general. Without doing any research, I’m sure it’s probably traceable to the same source of most religious ritual – a chance for the church to seize greater control over a community. Pair off people, charge them with making and raising lots of kids to help work fields, fight wars, pay tribute to the king and shaman, etc. And x-thousand years later we’re kind of stuck on the same idea. Shilly sit.
Steve I cannot say I disagree with much of what you said…. in the mean time, there a lot of people who take semantics very, very seriously,,, they are called christians
Well-put Steve. I’ve always maintained that the notion of “marriage” is a religious construct but partnerships/unions or whatever you want to call them (no matter who’s involved) are governed by states for other reasons (divorce, property ownership, taxes etc.) and that’s why a state constitution should never be amended in the manner being suggested in Indiana. Which was really the original point of my post – that and to complain about politicians.