Same-sex marriage ban defeated (Indiana)

[IndianaGreen]

Source: The Indianapolis Star

Same-sex marriage ban defeated

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

---

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!

[BayCityProgressive]

1. Good!

Victories anywhere are nice to hear about!

[LiberalFighter]

2. From SJ7 Digest

Citations Affected: Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

Synopsis: Definition of marriage. Provides that marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Provides that Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Effective: This proposed amendment must be agreed to by a second general assembly and ratified by a majority of the state's voters voting on the question to be effective.

The earliest that this amendment could go into affect now is 2010 or maybe 2011 depending on how soon they could put it on the ballot. By then more people may not be interested in opposing same-sex rights.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Time is on our side

even Republican Governor Mitch Daniels was lukewarm about his Republicans wasting time on this travesty.

Time is on our side as more people, particularly young people, come to know and appreciate gay friends in school and work.

[LiberalFighter]

4. As far as I know there is now 1 gay state representative

He was elected in 2006

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Wow.

The home of Dan Quayle shows a smidgen of common sense and -- dare I say it? -- Christian charity.

Wait ... was that just a pig that flew past my window?

--p!

[Laughing Mirror]

6. I don't know

"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 ..."

Still clinging to the outdate notion of "traditional marriage" are they?

[LeftHander]

8. "Traditional MArriage"

Is between two landowners and their children. They force them to marry to consolidate power and influence.

[IndyOp]

12. Some of the Democrats who say they had no problem with the 1st section -

really did, but they were pleased to see it had so many other problems that they could claim the problem was the other problems.

Anyone who avoided making a courageous statement that they fully support civil rights for gays missed out on an important opportunity to do good in the world - but if they needed to use an excuse to do the right thing, then so be it.

We have a great social worker in my town who said that if this passed, he and his partner would be moving immediately out of state - many people in our community would have suffered so I am *most* grateful that it has bitten the dust.

:applause:

[IndianaGreen]

17. Thankfully, Dan Quayle is now a resident of Arizona

and that was a pig that flew past your window. :-)

[salin]

7. *whew* for now....

They will keep trying to sneak it in - as they (the state GOP) are desperate to get it on the ballot in 08 - the old "drive the radical rightwing voter base turnout". While not reported - it is my belief that this whole thing is a cynical attempt to get votes - at the expense of depriving rights of our fellow hoosiers.

I wouldn't count it down, yet. But I am very, very pleased that this has been blocked for now. Good on the state dems.

[Felix Mala]

9. Too early to breathe easy, gotta wait for final gavel on this session

Our legi is notorious ignoring laws regarding "last minute" legislation. They could easily slide this into a school lunch bill or some such. One year, when a legislators pet project was defeated he took a bill that had been through house committee, approved by house and had come out of senate committee for senate vote, stripped it of all approved language and substituted the language from his defeated bill AND he got away with it. The others didn't know what they were voting for.

[IndianaGreen]

18. There was the time when someone ordered the wall clocks unplugged

10-minutes short of the end of the legislative session in order to pass the state's first sales tax. The man responsible, Richard O. Ristine, was defeated when he ran for Governor. He was a Republican.

Hoosiers hate the sales tax as much as they hate changing the clocks.

[Marnieworld]

10. wow. And in Indiana too?

Yay! Score one for the good guys! :applause:

[Jokerman]

11. 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.

[customerserviceguy]

14. It's a step

Getting people who are squeamish about defining marriage as anything other than heterosexual, to be OK with quasi-marital institutions such as domestic partnerships, or civil unions, is a good thing. Ten, maybe twenty years of unequal marriage will dissolve when Mr. and Mrs. Ward Cleaver see that gay people living together in a committed relationship did nothing to hurt their marriage.

Having full equal marriage imposed by the courts in Massachusetts just caused a bunch of states to mar their constitutions with evil language that didn't have any parallels in the Jim Crow era. It would have been much better to have slipped into equal marriage gradually, rather than in one big leap.

[IndianaGreen]

15. I agree with your analysis, but I am still happy they voted against it

The younger generation, which it is not either one of us, are far more accepting of LGBTs than their elders. The more time passes, the least likely the General Assembly will pas some constitutional travesty like this one.

Getting control of the State House was very important. Assuming the national Democrats refrain from nominating a polarizing candidate for President, we may have a good chance to increase Democratic numbers in both chambers.

BTW, what did you think of Mike Pence saying that going shopping in Baghdad is as safe as taking a stroll through Bargersville?

[pigpickle]

13. Thumbs Up!

:thumbsup:

[VegasWolf]

16. Kool!! Way to go Indiana!! nt

[Vidar]

19. Not bad for Indiana.