Comments on: Indiana Senate votes for constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:01:45 +0000

Well, Vincennes has always been known as a bit of a trendsetter in Indiana… oh, yeah, sure…. (I live on a farm just north of there.)

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:48:21 +0000

My husband is an Indiana native and he taught me that phrase Mortanius used about Indiana being the most northern of the southern states. We live in California but have ties to quite a few people in southern Indiana. It was quite a revelation to our Hoosier friends when, at age 86, my husband wrote to tell what seemed like most of Vincennes that he’d gotten married for the first time in his life. We’ve been together for 26 years but before me, my husband had a partner for 32 years who died at the age of 75. So it wasn’t a secret about my husband being gay.

We were inundated with well-wishes after our wedding announcement. The grapevine went into overdrive and people native to Indiana who had long ago moved away called and wrote to extend congratulations. There is hope in Indiana. It consists of the goodness of people like our friends, all of whom are straight. It’s just too bad their leaders don’t know about them, or simply don’t care.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:43:04 +0000

Geaux Saints!

By: AJD

AJD — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:16:39 +0000

This is a sad development, but it’s a relief that Indiana doesn’t have a ballot initiative process like a lot of states out West do. It’s weird how the the Progressives (or was the the Populists? I don’t remember) in the early 1900s thought ballot initiatives were such a great way to rein in the stranglehold of big business on politics and the economy, but they never considered that, uh, the other side can use them too.

By: Donnchadh

Donnchadh — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:20:54 +0000

Just a reminder: in its present wording, it seems to ban the state from recognising marriage of any sort.

By: Mortanius

Mortanius — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:08:06 +0000

Will just have to say “Shame on you Indiana, Shame on you”. Living here I know what goes on. It is the same 3-4 individuals who submit these bills even before the end of the first day of the session.

I find it amazing that at least here in the most northern of the southern states that bills like this need to pass two separate legislation session before advancing to the people for a simple majority vote. I have always said you don’t vote for civil rights, much less a simple majority vote.

To think that Pence was considering (maybe still) running against Bayh and Pence, as we know is one of the leaders of the anti-gay movement/teabaggers/ultra conservative.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:03:14 +0000

I don’t think there was here either. But it is back in the same committee, the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee. They have two joint resolutions before them dealing with the definition of marriage, HJR-5 (the one like that the Senate passed) and HJR-7. Though both are nearly identical.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/PDF/RES/HJ0005.1.pdf

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/PDF/RES/HJ0007.1.pdf

That committee has a lot of stuff to wade through
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2010&request=getCommittee&committee_name=Rules+and+Legislative+Procedures&chamber=H

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:34:53 +0000

Lynn David,

Interestingly, I don’t believe that there is a single legislator in any state who lost their reelection after voting for marriage or civil unions. Or so I read recently.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:20:43 +0000

I forget who is on the House committee; but the last time one of the democrats was a woman who was fence sitting. She literally broke into tears when she voted, not for us evidently, but wondering what her vote might do to her chances for re-election. We’ll have to hope someone isn’t in that position again. If it gets to the whole House it will pass, democrats will vote for it.

By: Eddie89

Eddie89 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:23:26 +0000

Indeed, other states like Massachusetts and Connecticut also require very extreme and deliberate measures to modify their State Constitutions.

Perhaps it’s because California is a “newer” state and it’s founders wanted to be less “east coast” and so they made it possible to make changes to the constitution like it was nothing.

Sad… :-(