Gay Marriage | Indiana | News

BigGayDeal.com

Gay Marriage Ban Suffers Defeat in Indiana

IndymarriageA tied (5-5) vote in the House Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee effectively killed the proposed amendment banning gay marriage in Indiana for what could be a year. Five Democrats opposed the amendment, with four Republicans supporting it. They were joined by one Democrat.

"The Democrats who voted against the proposed amendment said they had no problem with the first section of the amendment, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Each said they believe in that portion, but had concerns about the consequences of a second section which states that no law can be construed as granting the legal incidents of marriage to anyone other than a married man and woman."

IndianaJust last week, a crowd of over 1,000 came out to show their support for the amendment, packing the statehouse as legislators debated.

Indiana Democrat Dan Parker applauded the amendment's defeat and criticized Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels for refusing to touch it.

Said Parker: House Democrats took a stand today against ill-crafted legislation that would have done more harm than good. This wasn’t a vote against traditional marriage; it was a vote for protecting vulnerable Hoosiers and promoting job growth....[Governor Daniels should show] some kind of leadership on the amendment, especially in light of his much-touted commitment to economic development. The governor has had multiple chances to say something about this amendment, but he’s nowhere to be found."

Same-sex marriage ban defeated [indy star]
Marriage Amendment Could Be Dead For Year [ap]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Thank god!
    I wish heterosexual people (Carolina) would realize that this ban affects them also. If they take away marriage/civil union rights, unmarried hetero people will lose out also.
    The religous right wants EVERY man and woman married and procreating!
    Years ago when homosexuals started pushing for marriage so strongly, someone should have sat back and taken a look at the mission statement for this movement. Its not about typical marriage, at least for me, its about civil unions, which give you rights w/your partners. I for one do not care about the religous aspect of it all, I just want to have a say in each others lives.

    Had the movement went for civil unions and not marriage this battle would be over.
    Is it to late?

    Posted by: rock | Apr 4, 2007 9:05:54 AM


  2. The backwards mentality of this country never ceases to amaze me. For every one step the GLBT community makes, these religious nuts put 10 back. I don't see any equality in this country for gay, lesbians and people of color until the majority is diluted, and no one group runs the show like now. They continue to make a mockery of the term "democracy."

    Good grief, even Mexico is more civilized that the USA in terms of equality, well for the most part since the indigenous people are still treated like trash.

    Posted by: Luke | Apr 4, 2007 9:16:13 AM


  3. I am so happy that this was defeated. Too bad it wasn't in my state. Oh well, we will just have to work a little harder to change people's opinions.

    Posted by: Matt | Apr 4, 2007 9:30:44 AM


  4. "Said Parker: House Democrats took a stand today against ill-crafted legislation that would have done more harm than good. This wasn’t a vote against traditional marriage; it was a vote for protecting vulnerable Hoosiers and promoting job growth...."

    Notice that it wasn't voted against in favor of gay rights and our dignity. It's for job growth... money. It's great that this didn't pass, but the comments don't seem to inspire much hope.

    Posted by: Rick | Apr 4, 2007 9:52:43 AM


  5. It must be weird to live in Indiana and hear the phrase 'protecting vulnerable Hoosiers' relatively frequently

    Posted by: Rottin' in Denmark | Apr 4, 2007 10:17:15 AM


  6. I'm shocked. I grew up in one of the most liberal parts of Indiana and cannot believe this thing was defeated. I'm sure it's not going away for long, but still. I'm shocked.

    Posted by: Ryno | Apr 4, 2007 10:21:14 AM


  7. Ugh...

    Rick you beat me to it...

    ONCE AGAIN, we see a discriminatory amendment go down, NOT because it is discriminatory, nor because it would disadvantage tax paying, law abiding citizens and their families, nor because it would permanently enshrine second class citizenship for a group of people into the constitution, nor because it's just flat out the WRONG thing to do in a modern, democratic society, but because it, “…would have done more harm THAN GOOD; and because it, “it was a vote for protecting vulnerable Hoosiers AND PROMOTING JOB GROWTH....[Governor Daniels should show] some kind of leadership on the amendment, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF HIS MUCH-TOUTED COMMITMENT TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT”, and; “Several large employers in recent weeks have objected to the amendment, saying IT CARRIED THE POTENTIAL OF JURTING THEIR EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION EFFORTS”, and; “…They were instrumental in making the case that an amendment defining marriage had no business JEOPARDIZING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THREATENING (straight) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS, and (as an afterthought) stripping our citizens of important rights.” [EMPHASIS and (commentary) mine]

    I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but I’ll say it again, these are not victories for equality and fairness, they are victories for economic development and victories against unmarried straight couples being inconvenienced by an amendment that, “"The Democrats who voted against the proposed amendment said they had no problem with the first section of the amendment, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. EACH said they believe in THAT portion, but had concerns about the CONSEQUENCES OF THE SECOND PORTION which states that no law can be construed as granting the legal incidents of marriage to ANYONE other than a married man and woman." [EMPHASIS mine]

    This is the same old victory by default that I’ve discussed ad nauseam here at Towleroad and it’s the same old victory by default that gay leaders, gay organizations and the gay community continues to celebrate as if it was a victory on merit. I thank God that this amendment was defeated for now, by hook or by crook, but I won’t feel that REAL progress has been made until the debate centers around the fact that it should be considered an ethical and moral no-brainer that gay Americans should be given ALL the rights, benefits, opportunities and responsibilities that every other American is given simply because there is NO other way to live up to the vision of our founding fathers that ALL mankind is created EQUAL and endowed with INALIENABLE rights to life liberty AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

    ANYTHING less, regardless of the economic consequences, is unethical, immoral and UNAMERICAN!

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 4, 2007 10:42:38 AM


  8. As long as the courts allow tyranny by the majority we faggots are not likely to have equal rights any time soon. There is so much side-stepping going on and transparent semantic arguments disguised as "tolerance", it could make a person vomit. Despite all we bring to the table to this nation on a daily basis, we are shunned. Why a straight person should have anything at all to say about how I should live my life is the abomination.

    Posted by: Bill | Apr 4, 2007 10:59:56 AM


  9. Me thinks since Zeke likes to respond so much and at such length, it is time for him to start his own blog...

    Posted by: Derek | Apr 4, 2007 12:27:20 PM


  10. Sounds like a pretty hollow victory.

    Posted by: MT | Apr 4, 2007 1:14:03 PM


  11. DEREK, you'll be happy to know that, for once, I will keep what me thinks to myself.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 4, 2007 2:11:46 PM


  12. Hmmm, it seems from your comment, Derek, that your brain, like your penis but more frequently, only operates in short spurts. Does a newly discovered 11th Commandment degree that all posts on all blogs must be 30 words or less? Pish posh. Only Father Towle himself may decide what's permissable either in length or content on his site.

    Scoll Bar, meet Derek. Derek, meet Scroll Bar.

    Posted by: Leland | Apr 4, 2007 2:17:23 PM


  13. Zeke: you’re not a broken record, although you do tend to skip when you’re at the beach!

    Anyway: I see your point regarding pragmatism vis à vis supporting anti-discrimination. What I see, however, is groups and individuals arguing against such discrimination as part of sound argument. Often times, I’d toss you up as a master of argument. You don’t normally stop at saying “X is right (or wrong),” but you continue with “…because…” and that part of the syllogism is critical to any sensible deduction. For a politician to say “I believe something is right (or wrong)” is to render an opinion or belief, but does not form an argument to encourage others to believe in the same way.

    It may sound crass, dear one, but my life-partner and I don’t see ANY value to our ability to marry unless it has totally practical application (the pragmatism) such as jointly filed taxes, benefits or visitation rights. Certainly, our belief is that ALL people should be equally entitled to marriage. We need, though, to demonstrate WHY…that’s how minds and practices are changed. My former employer instituted domestic partner benefits AFTER I demonstrated the pragmatism of giving domestic partner recognition to me and him (and to hundreds of others of couples in the company too, to boot). The practicality of doing so and the benefits to the company were the incentive…not my belief.

    Send my love to the hubby and kids!

    JT

    Posted by: JT | Apr 4, 2007 2:40:15 PM


  14. JT, I would agree with you but for the fact that the argument wasn't that it would be wrong to discriminate against gays because it would limit THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES financially; the argument was that this discrimination is wrong BECAUSE it would hurt BUSINESSES, because of recuiting and retention, and therefore would stifle economic developement. That is a perfectly accurate and resonable argument for a business to make and it was the ONLY position that a company could reasonably make from a business perspective (my issue isn't with the various companies' testimonies), it just rubs me the wrong way when they are the only arguments we hear from OUR political representatives (who should look out for our needs as much as they do for big business) AND from OUR gay rights organizations. It bothers me when I hear political representatives say that THESE considerations were THE ones that influenced their vote, especially when it seems that they ignore, avoid or act ignorant of the REAL personal toll that these policies have on OUR families, regardless of their POTENTIAL toll on big business.

    Check the archives, I have never said that I am against civil unions. In fact I believe, and have stated repeatedly, that incremental steps, though not ideal, is the best chance that we have of eventually achieving marriage equality.

    What I do take exception to are arguments that claim that marriage and civil unions are the same, or arguments that claim that gays should be restricted from marriage or the argument that we should take CUs and then be satisfied.

    Trust me, my family would gladly welcome Civil Unions over what we currently have; which is NOTHING. I will never be the one to slap "better" in the face for not being "perfect". However, I will never become comfortable with "second class" and I will never stop fighting for real equality.

    I personally believe that the State needs to get out of the "Rites" business and the Church needs to get out of the "Rights" business. Neither has a good record respectively. Let the State give Civil Unions to EVERYONE and let churches decide whom they will and will not marry.

    I believe the Church, the State and ALL citizens(gay, straight and otherwise) will be better off for it.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 4, 2007 3:30:49 PM


  15. Zeke: OK...now I'm getting it...you're not bothered by the pragmatism but rather by the fact that politicians are influenced by purely economic arguments rather making their decisions based on internally held beliefs in the equality of every person.

    Incidentally, you and I have spoken about civil unions v. marriage on several occasions...you might have been drugged up, though, after the surgery! Anyhoo...thanks for clarifying.

    I, too, believe that "marriage" should be a ceremonial thing left up to churches and that legal recognition of a union should be called a civil union. Now, we just need to frame the arguments so that the US can adopt some of the European models.

    Posted by: JT | Apr 4, 2007 4:20:36 PM


  16. Leland's lips, meet my ass - my ass, meet Leland's lips.

    I was simply saying that Zeke seems to have so much passion about so many of the topics on this blog that perhaps the world would be better served by him having his own blog in which to post his myriad of opinions.

    It was not critism or a complaint and nor was I talking to you or about you Leland - so reread what's above if you are confused.

    Posted by: Derek | Apr 4, 2007 4:24:46 PM


  17. Derek, Derek, you're breaking my heart. But, sorry, I'm an Orthodox Jew so my lips aren't allowed to touch pork.

    Learn to express yourself better and neither your fat ass nor your fat head will be called into question.

    Posted by: Leland | Apr 4, 2007 4:42:12 PM


  18. Again I was not speaking to you, about you or wishing to engage you in any dialogue what so ever. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and scroll past those comments left by fat heads with fat asses to which you take exception. We all can't be the queen of letters to the editor like you are Leland-thank God. Pulled pork sandwiches anyone?-Leland you take two.

    Posted by: Derek | Apr 4, 2007 5:19:32 PM


  19. Gentlemen, I don't want to be the source of a flame war here.

    Derek, your point is well taken, though your original comment seemed more like a slap in the face than a friendly suggestion.

    I will do my best to limit the length and frequency of my posts and I will consider creating my own blog for my unsolicited opinions and rants.

    Thanks.

    And Leland, my friend, thanks for having my back as usual. I may not always be comfortable with your style of confrontation (and it's not important that I be) but I always appreciate your passion and your intelligence and I always know that you will unapologetically stand up for what, and who, you think is right.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 4, 2007 7:14:51 PM


  20. Derek, please be careful about who you introduce your ass to: I fear that if Leland's mouth ever gets close enough to your ass for his lips to touch, your behind will be instantly chewed so badly that it will need to be scraped off the walls and the ceiling.

    And don't call me, honey ... I don't even do windows.

    Posted by: Allen | Apr 5, 2007 2:54:59 AM


  21. Well here we have another debate/discussion turned into a bitch session because of egos or whatever.
    What could have been a good sounding board is now just a virtual fighting ring!
    The focus has been lost, the Democrats have the same problem.

    Posted by: rock | Apr 5, 2007 8:54:02 AM


  22. Rock: You have my support on that observation...but I think it's funny how your post tossed some invective toward the Democratic Party...not that I necessarily disagree with you, mind you.

    The truly unfortunate thing about reader comments is that we can't use tone of voice! Sometimes the humor or sarcasm is lost when typing at work (not my excuse any longer) or in between sips of rye (now, THAT'S something I can blame!)

    Posted by: JT | Apr 5, 2007 9:53:30 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Keith Richards' Near-Death Experience: Snorting Dad« «