Gay marriage amendment back

January 14, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Thanks to state Reps. P. Eric Turner, R-Marion, and Dave Cheatham, D-North Vernon, Hoosiers can once again argue about whether or not we should have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The two recently announced at a press conference they are co-sponsoring the “Defense of Marriage” amendment this session, which has yet to be filed. Sen. Marlin Stutzman, R-Howe, plans on filing the amendment in the Senate.

This topic just infuriates me; with all the other problems in the world, a select group of very vocal people decide that constitutionally banning gay marriage in Indiana is what we should be focused on. Forget our foundering economy, skyrocketing unemployment rates, increased taxes, or failing educational system. No, what threatens Indiana residents day in and day out is that their homosexual neighbor may have the legal right to marry their partner!

I’ll forgo getting into all the religious aspects of this bill in this post and instead focus on something that I think Rep. Turner and others should focus on if they really want to “defend” the sanctity of marriage.

They believe two people of the same sex shouldn’t marry because it destroys traditional family values. You know what, so do abusive husbands who beat their wives and manipulate them. Children shouldn’t be exposed to that kind of household.

When two heterosexual people with children divorce, that breaks up the “traditional” family by their definition. People divorce for all types of reasons, some because of a cheating spouse or abusive marriage, some because it’s the easy way out. If Rep. Turner and others are so serious about defending the family, why don’t they make more of an effort to emphasize pre-marital and marital counseling and working through problems instead of divorce when it’s possible?

Spend more time and resources combating teen pregnancy. Many children grow up in households with single mothers or grandparents instead of the “traditional” two-parent household. Also work on getting fathers more involved in their children’s lives, in or outside of a marriage.

If a church doesn’t want to marry a gay couple, that’s fine. It’s that church’s right as a private institution to decide who it marries. The state, on the other hand, shouldn’t be allowed to dictate that two consenting adults can’t have a marriage at the courthouse or other non-religious location.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I have always wondered why so many people are opposed to the idea of gay marrage. Problem is, these people either refuse to identify what a Traditional Family is or when they define this family, they go back to the idea of just Man-Woman marrage and goes off on a tangent about how two people of the same gender entertaining themselves is sick or against Gods way.

    By allowing two people to get married, how does this affect the traditional family? If it was acceptable, it would be another thing that these Nay Sayers have to learn and figure out to teach their children.

    I guess it comes down to, how do you teach the children the purpose of getting together for pro-creation. With the current technology, this is only going to get harder as time goes on since we are able to create life (and grow this life in either man or woman or even test tube) without even having a strait couple bumping uglies so to speak. So the idea of marrage for the children is loosing ground every day.

    When the arguement comes down to: Because the bible says so or It is evil in God\'s Eys or any arguement with bible, God, heaven or even hell, I find those arguements to be lacking in substence. By all means, I do follow the christian religion, BUT I find the bible arguements are severely lacking in their own areas. And the arguements that are not Religious can have counter-arguement with Science.
  • These sort of debates really need to be placed in the public forum.
    Progressives really must work harder and educate the public on this sort of stuff.
    And I know, everyone hates to do it, but progressives in this state might have to put gay marriage on hold and work on civil-unions and working rights. Also, as a state that is slowly progressing we cannot have this attitude, it is bad for business.
    The traditional family never exsisted. I think a lot of government officials and social conservatives have this warm fuzzy feeling of something that rarely(if ever) exsisted.
    The \'traditional family\' ended when a couple was given the right to divorce.
    Marriage itself is not somehow sacred to many people. Though it is a sacred alliance to many, it does not hold the same to a majority of people who make up for this massive divorce rate.
    Why don\'t they work to limit divorces? Or to end drive-thru wedding chapels?
    Fear is what I think it is.
    Anytime we go through an era of social progression there is, and always will be a backlash, however the slow trends are against them.
    These moves are on the wrong side of history.
    However, progressives must fight for equal rights.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT