Comments on: Indiana House Passes Gay Marriage Ban

By: Mortanius

Mortanius — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:27:56 +0000

Such a wonderful state. Graduation rates barely hitting 50%, rampant crime, foreclousures, 10%+ unemployment, property tax caps, and a budget year, and all our legislators have done for two months is get this done?
Who cares that the house is burning down, there’s some dust on the mantle that must be taken care of or the world will end.
They want to protect the scantity of marriage? Ban Divorce, or in a divorce the 1st one the state gets 10% off the gross value of the state, second divorce 20%, third state gets 30% of the value of the estate.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:22:01 +0000

Republicans are fairly well entrenched in the Indiana house and senate now. There are also not a few democrats who favor such an amendment; others will vote in favor of the amendment so it simply cannot be used against them in the next election. So I don’t doubt that the amendment will pass and be in the ballot by 2014 if not 2013. It only takes a simple majority after that and in Indiana that is assured. In my house and senate districts polls concerning a marriage amendment generally run 85% or more in favor.

By: Rob San Diego

Rob San Diego — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:00:12 +0000

Now why can’t we have that rule here in California? And yet it takes a 2/3 majority to pass a budget.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 03:32:06 +0000

I hope a national Gay org or an Indianan one is ready for a Federal lawsuit if this passes. Depriving LGBTs of the right to address marriage and family law through the normal political process of petitioning state legislatures or state courts is a direct violation of Romer v Evans AND Lawrence v. Texas. Even if SCOTUS accepts restricting marriage to heterosexuals as a legitimate government interest, making LGBTs legal strangers to their own state government, and wholesale deprivation of sweeping Due Process rights is still unconstitutional. It does not significantly advance the government’s interest, nor is this violation of gays’ rights even logically connected to it.

By: EZam

EZam — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:23:15 +0000

All this work for something that wouldn’t survive a SCOTUS overturn.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:58:09 +0000

Would that it were that difficult for amendments to get on the Arizona constitution. (Talking about the process, not how many people voted on it.)