Main Menu

blog advertising is good for you


Now Let’s Really Protect Marriage

Although I’ve been critical of the Indiana General Assembly for not getting anything done so far this session, I have to say yesterday, their inaction was one of the best things they could have ever done. The House Rules and Legislative Committee voted 5-5 on a constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage. Because the measure didn’t get a majority of votes so it didn’t pass. I argue it would have done more than that because while the first section of the amendment said marriage shall be between a man and a woman, which was fine. It was the second section that raised my eyebrows. It read the Indiana law or the Constitution could not be construed to grant the “legal incidents” of marriage to unmarried couples. No one can still tell me what a “legal incident” of marriage is and the posturing on this issue has gotten real old, real quick.

Eric Miller and his crowd need to go somewhere and sit down. In fact, to paraphrase Robin Williams from his role in “Good Morning, Vietnam” Eric Miller is in more need of oral sex than any white man I’ve ever met. This issue needs to be out to rest. Marriage is not under attack by gay couples and activists judges. This is Indiana! Do you people remember how much effort it took to get people to change their clocks in this state? If that’s any indication of how hard it is to change things in this state, then marriage should be fine for a long time to come.

However, if amendment supporters really want to protect marriage and strengthen families, then they should take real steps to protect the institution. First, they should be about job creation. Most families break up over financial matters. When couples can make a good living, they tend to stay together. Second, how about fighting crime. Crime can break up a family. Just ask the mother on the east side of Indianapolis who was killed by a stray bullet. How about working to bring more choice to schools, so families have options when it comes to their education. How about stepping child support enforcement, so men who have fathered children will be responsible and there will be less dependence on government.

If the proponents of strong marriages and families really want to do some good, they’ll focus on those issues, not some mirage called gay marriage.

  • Heterosexual Woman

    RIGHT ON ABDUL! I love it when you call out the hypocrisy of people like Eric Miller and remind us where our “family values” should be!

    I’m all for separation of church and hate.

  • Anonymous

    For the record, Abdul, the second sentence did not say that “the Indiana law or the Constitution could not be construed to GRANT the “legal incidents” of marriage to unmarried couples.” That is the false argument that homosexual activitists wanted people to believe and, apparently, you have fallen for it.

    What the second sentence actually said was that Indiana law and the Constitution could not be construed to REQUIRE the legal incidents of marriage to unmarried couples. “Requiring” is completely different from “granting.”

    Don’t be a fool, Abdul. I am sure you can find other reasons to oppose this amendment; but it’s a pretty sloppy attorney who misses key distinctions like the one above.

  • Abdul

    A rose is a rose. Name one judge in indiana who would have forced same-sex marriage in Indiana. And one appellate court who would have upheld it? We can’t even change clocks in this state without a fight!

  • Idunno

    At one point in the House Rules hearing, Eric Miller stated something to the effect that he “could envision a day when there would be enough votes on the Indiana Supreme Court to force same sex marriages on Hoosiers.”

    I (Homosexual Man #1) turned to my friend in the chamber (Homosexual Man #2) and said, “that’s funny. I can’t!”

    I don’t know where they think these Hoosier “liberal” judges are coming from. They are no less stubborn and adverse to change than any other Hoosier.

    This is not and never has been about same-sex marriage. It was illegal before Tuesday. It is illegal in Indiana today.

    This IS and always HAS BEEN about power and using one scare tactic to ramrod a measure with serious consequences into our fundamental document of freedom.

    NOTE: Saw an add for a used wedgewhacker recently. Well-worn and tied up.

  • Anonymous

    That’s funny, Idunno. If this wasn’t about gay marriage, then why was the homosexual community fighting it so hard? If this wasn’t about gay marriage, then why did some of Indiana’s employers feel pressured to oppose the amendment so that they could, supposedly, attract gay employees who might have aspirations of some day getting married? If this wasn’t about gayy marriage, then what, pray tell, was it about?

    The fact is, even the homosexual community tried to say that gay marriage will never happen here, but they were fighting this amendment with this precise hope that it WILL someday happen here. Sorry, “homosexual man #1”, we (the opponents of those who want to redefine marriage) are not as stupid as you think.

    Regretfully, the jury is still out on Abdul. At least when it comes to this issue. Like you said, Abdul, call it like it is.

  • Anonymous

    Abdul, you have too much common sense to ever get elected to public office.

  • Abdul

    anon 12:21, I appreciate the post, but I didn’t come here to be liked. I came here to tell it like it is. And if people don’t like, then that’s just too damn bad.

  • We Fought Because…

    Whatever it’s worth, 12:21, here’s why this gay dad fought the Amendment:

    I fought the DOMA in 1995. It was and is ridiculous, insulting and, I believe, unconstitutional. Check the equal protection clause.

    I am a student and lover of the constitutions, fed and state. I do not favor their defacing. Enactment of an Amendment, where ample (albeit ridiculous) statutes exist, is doing exactly that.

    If it’s so damned important, then I demand that more-important, existing statutory bans be pushed to Amendment status: rape, theft murder, assault, embezzlement…the list goes on. Take up the cross, man…for moral consistency, your efforts on behalf of those Amendments is demanded.

    Finally, I fought this Amendment because it made a broad public statement about me and my family. Bashing someone with a duplicitous Amendment, especially one this hateful, is wedge politics at its worst (or, perhaps, best). It said to me: “Your state despises you.”

    And I’ve given a great deal to this state, in all aspects of the verb “give.”

    If you had one iota of legal brain, you’d realize the “legal incidents of marriage” could’ve been more far-reaching than even you desired.

    And, to top it off, your chief proponents are hateful, tax-dodging homophobes who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

    We have more-important issues to discuss. Let’s get on with it.

    A pox on Eric Miller, Micah Clark and all who use my Lord’s holy book, in contortions, as evidence fo their “right.” My God is not amused.