Same-sex marriage ban defeated (Indiana)

[IndianaGreen]

Democrats took control of the House this past November. It was that election that made it possible to defeat this constitutional amendment. Who says the Democrats are the same as the GOP? Not in Indiana, they are not!

Same-sex marriage ban defeated (Indiana)

Source: The Indianapolis Star

By BILL RUTHHART

A proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage failed on a tied vote today in the House Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee, effectively killing the amendment’s chances for this year.

The issue, however, could be resurrected for a second vote by lawmakers next year.

In reaction, one of the leading voices opposed to the ban, Indiana Equality, applauded the members of the committee who voted against it for their “courageous action, and for standing up for the countless Hoosiers and their families who would have faced needless discrimination.”

“We ... want to thank the many businesses, organizations, and individuals who stood with us in opposing SJR-7,” the group’s president, Jon Keep, said in a statement. “They were instrumental in making the case that an amendment defining marriage had no business jeopardizing economic development, threatening the security of domestic violence victims, and stripping our citizens of important rights.”

One Democrat joined four Republicans in supporting the amendment.

Read more: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070403/LOCAL1901/70403044

[melnjones]

1. 'bout time i can be proud of something in my state. nt.

[Jokerman]

2. Dems opposed for the wrong reason

The Democrats who voted against the proposed amendment said they had no problem with the first section of the amendment, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Each said they believe in that portion, but had concerns about the consequences of a second section which states that no law can be construed as granting the legal incidents of marriage to anyone other than a married man and woman.

“House Democrats took a stand today against ill-crafted legislation that would have done more harm than good,” Indiana Democratic Dan Parker said. “This wasn’t a vote against traditional marriage; it was a vote for protecting vulnerable Hoosiers and promoting job growth.”

I'm glad it failed but I would have liked to see the dems stand up and oppose the entire thing, not just the poorly and dangerously worded second section.

[LiberalFighter]

3. If churches don't want same-sex marriages then don't

but don't force the rest of the citizens to abide by that edict.

Clergy are not the only ones that are permitted to perform marriage ceremonies.

Clergy must perform religious ceremonies when marrying because their church requires it... the state is not requiring them to.

[LiberalFighter]

4. If I read the Indiana Constitution correctly it needs to be defeated next year too

Otherwise, it goes on the ballot.

Basically, Indiana Constitution requires the amendment to be passed in two different Sessions. It was first passed in 2005. Nothing was done in 2006 because it was the same session. A session lasts 2 years. The 114th session were 2005 and 2006. The 115th session is 2007 and 2008.

[salin]

5. I think that the reason it was pushed, was to get it onto the

presidential election cycle (as has been the case in other states, where the issue was pushed to drive a certain voting constiuency to the polls). There is no big election next year. I think the far, far rightwingers for whom this has really become a "real" issue might try to push it next year. However, because I think that the point of this amendment is different than the actual amendment - I doubt there will be the energy to push this further next year, in order to get it onto the ballot in an off-year election (that is off-year for national offices.)

[LiberalFighter]

6. I think they may try to change the wording of the amendment

If they do, they will have to pass it in 2008 and then in 2009 or 2010 to get it on the ballot.

I don't know what you are talking about when you state there is no big election next year. Next year is 2008 and presidential/governor race.

[and-justice-for-all]

7. This is the continued waltz of Government and Religion...

...Religious Fundamentalist trying to apply their dogmatic law upon everyone.

If you subscribe to a ideology and determine that Same-sex relations is wrong, then its ONLY wrong for you.
That bunk book of ancient and outdated nonsence isnt for everyone, actually it isnt for anyone. But, the here is, unless you decided to live your life according to that book, just go do it and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

I am glad Indiana choice reason over superstition.