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. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT