Indiana House Passes Amended Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage in 57-40 Vote

Sp_bosma

The Indiana House has passed the amended HJR3, the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, in a 57-40 vote.

The bill now moves to the Senate, which must approve the amended language. A sentence that prohibited any legal relationship that is "identical or substantially similar" to marriage was struck from the amendment yesterday.

If the Senate passes the amended version, it will not go to the ballot in 2014. It must begin the process anew. The senate could work to re-add the second sentence.

A constitutional amendment needs to pass two separately-elected General Assemblies and be approved by a voter majority in a public referendum before becoming part of the constitution.

Housevote

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. ....because they care about the Economy....and jobs...right?

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 28, 2014 3:33:11 PM


  2. More and more in common with Russia...or the nutcase in England UKIP party, who blames the floods on 'the gays'.

    Haven't these politicos anything useful to do ?

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jan 28, 2014 3:38:23 PM


  3. This is an epic fail for NOM.

    Posted by: jeo | Jan 28, 2014 3:51:58 PM


  4. Is this Indiana or Mississippi?

    Posted by: Frank | Jan 28, 2014 4:04:38 PM


  5. This is fantastic. It gives us yet another chance to take one of these hateful laws to the Supreme Court so they can deem it unconstitutional and eventually assure our equality nationwide.

    Posted by: peterparker | Jan 28, 2014 4:32:56 PM


  6. In theory this could be blocked by a federal court injunction before it even passes.

    Posted by: anon | Jan 28, 2014 4:45:01 PM


  7. The hate groups have played Indiana so badly. I just don't see how this turns out anything but good for LGBT equality in the long run.

    Using the idea of a constitutional amendment being essential to preventing marriage equality when there is already a state statute in place is nothing more than grandstanding for fundraising. When the Courts/SCOTUS find marriage bans unconstitutional it won't make a whit of difference if it's by statute or by constitutional amendment.

    The insertion of sentence two, which they insisted on, is proof positive of animus. Of a high degree of animus. That plays into court reversals as in Ohio, Utah & Oklahoma and adds to the case for heightened scrutiny.

    The voters know it. The major universities and employers know it. Mayor associations know it. Chamber of Commerce knows it. The courts know it. Even 21 Republicans voted no because they know it. Their hate is so great it blinds them and they refuse to see the obvious.

    Passing the bill the way it is effectively kills it so expect the Senate to be pressured to reinsert sentence two. If that's the case the House may or may not pass HJR3 with it included. I'm guessing not but if by some chance the Republicans who voted no can be made to change their minds HJR3 as written is highly unpopular with Hoosiers. Something like 64% polled say they won't vote for it even if it is on the ballot.

    NOM, AFA, & the hate group Alliance have way overplayed their base here.

    Posted by: SERIOUSLY | Jan 28, 2014 5:06:24 PM


  8. I want to rejoice in this victory, but since Queen Latifah won't come out, I just can't bring myself to be happy about this.

    Posted by: AllTheBoBoQueenLatifahComplainers | Jan 28, 2014 5:18:18 PM


  9. A straight marriage ban would have passed, but including that Second Sentence has thrown a wrench into the plans of the haters in Indiana. Still, this vote is disgusting and shows that yesterday's vote wasn't one supporting equality.

    Posted by: Francis | Jan 28, 2014 6:46:54 PM


  10. This is huge win for marriage equality in Indiana. Not getting it on the ballot this year, I believe, means the ban will never pass given how quickly public opinion is moving on the issue.

    Posted by: Ken | Jan 28, 2014 10:51:45 PM


  11. The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law

    The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law.

    Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.

    "Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language.

    Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments.

    Posted by: I'm layla miller i know stuff | Jan 29, 2014 1:54:23 AM


  12. Aesop's Fables, translated by Laura Gibbs (2002)

    533. WAR AND HIS BRIDE
    Perry 367 (Babrius 70)

    The gods were getting married. One after another, they all got hitched, until finally it was time for War to draw his lot, the last of the bachelors.

    Hubris, or Reckless Pride, became his wife, since she was the only one left without a husband. They say War loved Hubris with such abandon that he still follows her everywhere she goes.

    So do not ever allow Hubris to come upon the nations or cities of mankind, smiling fondly at the crowds, because War will be coming right behind her.

    Note: Hubris is a Greek word meaning reckless pride or insolence; as a feminine noun, hubris is, allegorically, a woman.

    Posted by: I'm layla miller i know stuff | Jan 29, 2014 1:58:35 AM


  13. @SERIOUSLY Fantastic analysis! Thank you.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Jan 29, 2014 12:08:29 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Leader of Russian Vigilante Group That Tortures Gay Teens is Back in Russia and Under Arrest« «