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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT