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.

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.

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.

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.

I’m all for separation of church and hate.