ILNews

In-box: Don't we have more pressing business?

April 27, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

Dear Mickey

Thanks for saying in your column (Indiana Lawyer March 30-April 12, 2011) what I hope many of us Hoosiers are thinking and feeling about the proposed immigration and same-sex marriage legislation. In particular, as a married father of two, I am puzzled regarding why our legislators feel compelled to spend valuable time working to enact more same-sex marriage laws that we do not need. Don’t we have more pressing business at hand? I have to conclude, as you do, that blatant prejudice, homophobia and intolerance are driving these efforts. I have not heard or read of any compelling legal justification for more regulation of same-sex marriage, and morality is not an area where lawmakers should intrude. I would rather see our General Assembly work on a law providing same-sex couples access to the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy by legalizing same-sex marriage, or civil union, etc., whatever label will avoid the most controversy and provide dissolution, custody, child support and related rights to these Hoosiers.

Unfortunately, your column reinforces for me how shameful and embarrassing it will be if Indiana passes an Arizona-like immigration law and even more anti-same-sex marriage laws. The jokes I hear about Indiana being so backward and unsophisticated will, I suppose, be appropriate. The negative impact on Indiana in terms of attracting and keeping businesses just makes the shame and embarrassment costly, too. I have become a supporter of Gov. Daniels, despite being a longtime Democratic voter, because of his shrewd, business-like approach to running this state; he seems genuinely earnest in his belief that Indiana needs to reinvent itself as a state where businesses want to be. I just wonder why he cannot prevail upon the legislators pushing these issues to leave well enough alone. I am proud to have been a Hoosier my entire life, but nothing about these proposed laws makes me proud.

Alan J. Irvin
Donahoe/Irvin, Indianapolis

ADVERTISEMENT

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT