Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My partner and I just moved here this past summer and agree to take our talents back to Seattle. Indianapolis will never become a world class city with second class amendments being voted on. More couples are speaking of leaving for Chicago, Minneapolis, and other forward thinking cities. Sad, because we like Indy, but this is bigotry.
My partner and I just moved here this past summer and agree to take our talents back to Seattle. Indianapolis will never become a world class city with second class amendments being voted on. More couples are speaking of leaving for Chicago, Minneapolis, and other forward thinking cities. Sad, because we like Indy, but this is bigotry.
I think you make a valid point, but a lot of people don't have the luxury to move to more gay friendly cities. It's nice if you can, but gay friendly cities can be very expensive. I live in high cost California. Sure, we have gay marriage, but I pay dearly to live in a very small apartment. A few people here in a few select industries make great money. The rest of the people make a little more than most oter places, but not enough to make up for the much higher cost of living. Things are working out ok for me at this point, but if I ever lose my job, I probably won't be able to continue to live here. Gay rights are nice, but in many ways other daily quality of life issues matter more. I would add I don't plan on getting married so the law is more of an abstraction for me.
Eventually, homophobic laws that get passed on this issue will eventually be overturned by the courts or changed in the legislature as the old people die off.
ugh, I have had this argument with a friend (who is also gay) and he wants so badly to vote on this. I kept arguing that the best outcome would be for it to die in committee or for the wording to change (which would reset the clock and punt the issue down the road) He doesn't care. He wants to vote.
Here's the problem with that logic. There are still racist among us, but we don't bring up legislation and amendments every session because a few among us think we "should" talk about it. We The People do NOT vote on minority rights because they are rights. It is that simple.
Also, no matter what you were taught in school, this is a representative republic, not a democracy. We elect representatives so they can know the constitution and create law that doesn't conflict with that constitution. We give this power to a select few so that they can specialize and so that we don't have to. Our shoddy representation created a law years ago that says marriage is between one man and one woman. This law (no matter how people feel on either side) was upheld in Indiana courts. Our representatives know that this law is crap and is in direct conflict with our state constitution. Hence the Amendment process.
So really, what is it we "should" be talking about her? SHOULD we be talking about the merits of the amendment? or SHOULD we be talking about politicians being out of touch with their constituencies and frankly the reality surrounding them?
These are excellent points.
Though, it should be noted by that there is a bit more than meets the eye going on with this push for the amendment from the far-right of the political spectrum.
Not just are the powers-that-be on the far-right of the political spectrum pushing this amendment trying to codify discrimination against gays and homosexual couples into the state constitution, but they are also trying to discourage (with the intent to eliminate) other living styles amongst heterosexual couples outside of marriage by attempting to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships and any benefits that would be associated with them.
There are also some politicians in Indiana's Republican leadership that are pushing this amendment as a means to raise their national political profiles.
The Indiana Republican politicians in particular that want to use this amendment fight to raise their national political profiles are:
...The extremely socially-conservative Indiana Governor Mike Pence, who is seriously pondering a run for President in 2016 and wants the amendment fight out of the way before he runs for President in '16 or runs for re-election as governor...Pence wants the amendment fight out of the way so that he can use it as an 'achievement' to run on in an increasingly-conservative Republican Presidential Primary process in 2016 where the most staunchly-conservative candidates have the most appeal amongst an increasingly angry and hard-edged conservative electorate that is 'out for blood' politically;
...Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, who has aspirations of being next-in-line to run for governor after Mike Pence (...if Pence runs for President in '16, then Bosma may contemplate running for governor as early as '16, if Pence does not run for President and is re-elected to a second-term as governor, Bosma will run for governor in 2020);
...Indiana State Representative Eric Turner of Cicero, who wants to raise his political profile both inside the Indiana Republican Party and in national conservative circles;
...Eric Miller, Founder and Executive Director of Advance America, a group that is arguably Indiana's most-powerful conservative lobbying organization...Eric Miller, who many have described as the most-powerful man in the Indiana Statehouse (and who, ironically, lost in the 2004 Republican Gubernatorial Primary to Mitch Daniels because Hoosier voters at that time thought that Eric Miller would be too conservative and too-obsessed with social issues as governor) wants to use this amendment fight to raise his profile as an ultra-conservative lobbyist to become a hero in national hard-line conservative circles, where having a high-profile can be very-profitable on the national conservative speaking circuit.
This amendment fight that Indiana's very-powerful extreme social conservatives and Republican political leadership are just aching to have, is not just about further codifying into law state discrimination against gays, but is also about bringing in tens-of-millions of dollars of outside money into the state on the right side of the political spectrum.
With Indiana's gay marriage amendment being the only state gay marriage amendment on the ballot in 2014 (and likely one of the last gay marriage amendments that will be put forth since 31 states already have gay marriage amendment bans in place, gay marriage is legal in 17 states and 4 states have only a state statute banning gay marriage), the Indiana gay marriage amendment fight will make Indiana into a national battleground state during a mid-term election year and will be a proxy war between the right and the left in the larger 'culture war'.
This means that Indiana Republican political leaders like Mike Pence, Brian Bosma, Eric Turner and Eric Miller will have the chance to make themselves famous (on the national conservative scene) and very-wealthy by advancing this fight at the behest of the far-right of the political spectrum which sees this amendment fight (rightly or wrongly) as a golden opportunity to stem the tide and pushback against the gay marriage and gay rights movements and non-traditional living arrangements amongst both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.
Because the national culture war spotlight will be on Indiana during the 2014 mid-term election season, lots of money will be flowing in from wealthy and abundantly well-funded outside national political interests into the coffers of the Indiana's Republican political leaders and the Indiana Republican Party...which is what this is mostly really about at the end of the day...a cynical ploy to raise tens-of-millions of dollars for Republican and conservative interests in Indiana.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwbshoener
My partner and I just moved here this past summer and agree to take our talents back to Seattle. Indianapolis will never become a world class city with second class amendments being voted on. More couples are speaking of leaving for Chicago, Minneapolis, and other forward thinking cities. Sad, because we like Indy, but this is bigotry.
It should be noted that it is NOT the government of the City of Indianapolis pushing this anti-gay marriage amendment (which the City of Indianapolis actually issued a resolution condemning the amendment), but it is the State of Indiana pushing the amendment...an amendment which as I noted in a previous post is likely constitutionally flawed and appears to be highly-susceptible to a court challenge which has the potential to be successful.
If you're going to be mad at anyone, be mad at the ultraconservative interests on the right side of the political spectrum in Indiana State government that are pushing this anti-gay marriage amendment.
Don't be mad at the City of Indianapolis which has actually spoken-out against and condemned this amendment.
It doesn't matter whether we should be debating the issue or not, just as it does not matter that you should not be fighting after someone attacks you and tries to cause you great harm.
You may not necessarily be a violent person, but if someone violently attacks you with intent to cause you great bodily harm, you fight back to defend yourself and even take them out to eliminate them as a threat if you have to.
Hard-line social conservatives may have thoughts that are increasingly irrational at this point in time, but with those same hard-line social conservatives thoroughly dominating the political and cultural process in Indiana by way of a Republican supermajority in both houses of the Indiana Legislature and Republican control of all statewide political offices, the irrational thoughts that hard-line social conservatives harbor and espouse cannot just simply be written-off as a waste of time.
The hard-liners on the far-right side of the political spectrum are not just pushing this as a harmless exercise in irrational thought, the hard-liners on the far-right side of the political spectrum are pushing this as a defining battle in the ongoing 'culture war' between the hard-right and far-left.
Powerful hard-line social conservatives are playing for keeps and those who oppose this amendment need to do so as well.
Instead of trying to avoid having this imminent and unavoidable epic 'culture wars' battle, those in the political center and on the political left need to embrace this very-winnable fight that those on the far-right are just foaming at the mouth to have.
Gay marriage and gay rights supporters should view this escalating fight as a once-in-a-lifetime golden opportunity to advance their cause (particularly with all of the national money and attention that will be pouring into Indiana as this epic fight ramps up through 2014, and with the increasingly powerful backing of the business community).
The Gay Marriage Amendment is basically a fight that is a 'win-win' for gay marriage and gay rights supporters because gay rights supporters will have two opportunities to advance their cause.
First, gay marriage/gay rights supporters will have the opportunity to defeat the amendment in a public showdown at the ballot box in November...
...Gay marriage/gay rights supporters will have all of 2014 to get the Indiana voting public on their side, something which appears to be very-possible with the public appearing to lean their way and with all of the national money that will be pouring into Indiana.
Second, even if the voting public approves the amendment after an epic campaign, gay marriage/gay right supporters will have the opportunity to challenge the amendment in court, a challenge that looks to be somewhat winnable because of the amendment's poor wording (particularly the second line that appears to ban civil unions, domestic partnerships and job benefits to non-married people) and because of the amendment's poor construction (the fact that the confusing accompanying house resolution that attempts to clarify the amendment was not voted on by two different state legislatures appears to leave the entire amendment very-vulnerable to a winnable court challenge if approved by voters).
This isn't a fight that gay rights supporters should want to avoid or shy away from...
...This is a fight that gay rights supporters should want to engage in head-on because there seems to be such a great and historic opportunity to finally beat down, defeat and maybe even totally humiliate a long-time bully nemesis of theirs on the bigoted far-right.
If gay marriage and gay rights supporters play their cards right, they've got an opportunity do some significant political damage to some long-time bullies of theirs.
...That's because with public opinion rapidly-shifting towards gay marriage and gay rights supporters, this attempt by the far-right to ban gay marriage (which is already banned in Indiana) with what appears to be a highly-flawed constitutional amendment has the potential to backfire severely on those pushing the amendment.
The problem is the Constitution, whether federal or state, is supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority. A majority should never be allowed to vote for or against the rights of the minority. It goes completely against what the United States stands for.
I may be wrong, but I think some in the GOP are trying to insert language that ensures companies can offer benefits to sam-sex partners.
Actually, I think Democrats are trying to change the language of the amendment to allow for civil unions. Or at least remove that wording. The GOP just created a companion bill to "clarify" the second sentence. The fact that you need a companion bill to clear up a proposed constitutional amendment tells me that the amendment is very bad as it is and shouldn't even be up for vote!
The problem is the Constitution, whether federal or state, is supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority. A majority should never be allowed to vote for or against the rights of the minority. It goes completely against what the United States stands for.
That's an excellent point, but the people who hold the power in this case are not people who care about the rights of the minority.
The powerful extreme social conservatives pushing this amendment fight have no concern about trampling on the rights of a homosexual minority that they obsessively hate with a fiery passion.
No matter what the principle, because anti-gay marriage social conservatives hold so much overwhelming power in Indiana politics (by way of a GOP legislative supermajority and GOP control over all statewide political offices), this amendment fight is going to proceed whether most Hoosiers think that it should or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb
I may be wrong, but I think some in the GOP are trying to insert language that ensures companies can offer benefits to sam-sex partners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ischyros
Actually, I think Democrats are trying to change the language of the amendment to allow for civil unions. Or at least remove that wording.
The only problem is that Democrats likely do not have anywhere near enough power to change the language of the amendment because Republicans hold supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature.
With many Republican lawmakers being threatened with primary challenges from their hard-right if they do not support the amendment as it stands banning civil unions and domestic partnerships, not to mention with Governor Pence pushing hard for the amendment to be voted on no later than November 2014, Republicans as a whole are not likely to support any changes to the amendment itself because Republican leadership does not want to restart the clock and push the amendment process two more years back to 2016.
The Indiana Republican Party also does not want to anger its domineering political base of extreme social conservatives by supporting the changing of the language of the amendment to allow civil unions and domestic partnerships which the far-right base of the GOP also wants banned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ischyros
The GOP just created a companion bill to "clarify" the second sentence. The fact that you need a companion bill to clear up a proposed constitutional amendment tells me that the amendment is very bad as it is and shouldn't even be up for vote!
The companion bill likely has the potential to make the entire process illegal under state law because the companion bill was not voted on by two different state legislatures as required by state law.
That's an excellent point, but the people who hold the power in this case are not people who care about the rights of the minority.
The powerful extreme social conservatives pushing this amendment fight have no concern about trampling on the rights of a homosexual minority that they obsessively hate with a fiery passion.
No matter what the principle, because anti-gay marriage social conservatives hold so much overwhelming power in Indiana politics (by way of a GOP legislative supermajority and GOP control over all statewide political offices), this amendment fight is going to proceed whether most Hoosiers think that it should or not.
The only problem is that Democrats likely do not have anywhere near enough power to change the language of the amendment because Republicans hold supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature.
With many Republican lawmakers being threatened with primary challenges from their hard-right if they do not support the amendment as it stands banning civil unions and domestic partnerships, not to mention with Governor Pence pushing hard for the amendment to be voted on no later than November 2014, Republicans as a whole are not likely to support any changes to the amendment itself because Republican leadership does not want to restart the clock and push the amendment process two more years back to 2016.
The Indiana Republican Party also does not want to anger its domineering political base of extreme social conservatives by supporting the changing of the language of the amendment to allow civil unions and domestic partnerships which the far-right base of the GOP also wants banned.
The companion bill likely has the potential to make the entire process illegal under state law because the companion bill was not voted on by two different state legislatures as required by state law.
I agree on all points.
I'm cracking up at people I see on Facebook and the like posting things about protecting rights is the patriotic thing to do! But they are the same people that are in favor of banning gay marriage.
I'm cracking up at people I see on Facebook and the like posting things about protecting rights is the patriotic thing to do! But they are the same people that are in favor of banning gay marriage.
I definitely agree with you. But people on the left are not always consistent about protecting rights, either. Come live in California and you'll see what I mean.
I definitely agree with you. But people on the left are not always consistent about protecting rights, either. Come live in California and you'll see what I mean.
I'm cracking up at people I see on Facebook and the like posting things about protecting rights is the patriotic thing to do! But they are the same people that are in favor of banning gay marriage.
The continued domination of the American political process by hard-line social conservatives, particularly at the state-level, is a major reason why the gay marriage issue is most-likely to be decided by the federal court system that so many hard-line social conservatives despise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
