The Indiana State Senate just passed an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.
The final vote was 40-10.
3 Democrats joined 37 Republicans in voting for the amendment.
Local WIBC reports:
"The family is the basic unit of our society, and has been since Adam and Eve (were) created," Auburn Republican Dennis Kruse, who sponsored the amendment, says. "Marriage is, and should be, the union of one man and one woman."
Now it must pass the House and Senate again, after an intervening election (i.e. in either 2013 or 2014) to get to the people of Indiana in 2014.
Congratulations Indiana!
22 Comments
Wow; Yes -Congratulations Indiana!, but also congratulations to Brian Brown, Magie Gallagher , Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse , and all the good people at NOM, of Indiana, and there local activists for fighting the good fight. And winning!!!!!
Amendment processes like this illlustrate the importance of fundmental rights (like marriage) and highlight how judicial activism is too easy to impose & therefore not a valid mechnsm for policy disputes of this nature.
This also puts tremendous pressure on SCOTUS to not interfere in an ongoing democratic discussion.
I beleive that Indiana can win and get this issue onthe ballot. By doing show they have shown and continue to show the continued resiliancy of the traditional insitution of marriage in the heart of the people and their law.
Once again Congratulations all!!!!!
Patrick Fitzgerald Esq.
So many hoops, but nonetheless truth always wins in the end. The people of Indiana have a right to have their voices heard. It's further proof of the importance of NOM's work.
The ban also includes civil unions. Just more evidence that it's not about marriage. It's just about punishing gay families.
Bravo. Good that they covered civil unions, too, because civil unions are just the foot in the door for changing the definition of marriage.
This is great for society, great for children, and great for marriage!
@Michael
"This is good for society" is only true if you believe gay men and women are not a part of your "definition" of society.
"This is good for children" is only true if you don't take into account 500k+ children in America being raised by gay parents.
"This is good for marriage" is only true if you don't take into account the hundreds of thousands of gay couples who live in an area in the country where their tax dollars go towards their government treating them like complete strangers.
I'm glad you're happy in your privilege, obviously rooted in religious persecution of a minority group of people (whether you, yourself, are a religious person or not).
REMEMBER: We are not having a debate with SSM. They are simply attacking us on this One Man, One Woman page. NEVER change your mind. Always support One Man, One Woman. Take this to the ballot box. They want to bring this to a "debate" setting. Amuse them and chat but never change your stance.
Children who are raised by gay couples will more than likely think being gay isnt bad, according to God, the one TRUE book of Law the Bible, it says its wrong. Children need a real mother and father to be raised properly.
Congrats to my state, now lets get this passed 2 more times so I can gladly vote yes to pass it and make God happy that we are taking a stand.
Creighton (writes)
"Yes... Michael... shared medical insurance and legal/economic necessities for gay couples to form strong and stable households is "just a foot in the door"."
You would have a leg to stand on except in States like California were civil unions gave the same rights the gay legal groups never even thought of cutting any deals
Indeed in multiple juristictions civil union laws have been used by courts to justify an imposition of gay "marriage". (Conn. SC)
This was clearly the biggest victory (yet) for traditional marriage this year. While liberal media outlets publish lying polls, the ground level suggests something quite different.
Congratulations to Indiana. Just be sure to do the same thing in a couple of years!
I'm pretty sure that most indianans are gonna be posses when they realize their legislature just voted to ban civil unions and DPs for everyone. Doesn't say anything about SS couples. Just that unmarried couples can't have anything that resembles marriage.
That's kinda like what Texas did last year when they inadvertently banned all marriages in their attempt to hurt only gay families.
Equal2you
More than 20 State marriage amendments read with language like Indianas. Its really no big deal. We have had the same thing here in Michigan for years and it passed with 58% of the vote.
The story about texas is of course not true. Some people said that was the case with their language but legally they were not correct.
Conversely, civil unions are not good enough for homosexual fundamentalists.
"Just that unmarried couples can't have anything that resembles marriage. "
Heh, except for marriage itself.
Don't settle for anything second class folks. It takes a man and a woman to create a family. So-called "orientation" is irrelevant.
Civil unions? What's so civil about anal sex between two guys? It never leads to procreation in any sense, so what does it do for civilization but end it?
Michael Brooks,
Why are you so obsessed with what other loving couples may or may not be doing in their own home?
Zak -
Because it doesn't stay in their own home. They bring it to their parades, they are beginning to demand discussion of it in the classroom, and they are costing the taxpayers money with their spreading of disease through their "loving" activities.
A friend of mine picked up an STD from acting on what he called a "bi-curious" urge. Why would he have had an urge like that if he was not exposed to it from somewhere? That was why gays in the closet was a good thing. And had gays stayed in the closet, there would probably be a lot more guys alive today who would have avoided a homosexual experience or lifestyle and not acquired HIV/AIDS.
Penises in poop shoots is a bad combo; not good for the pitcher, not good for the receiver. And yet, we're supposed to be so tolerant of this activity that we teach our kids about it. And we advise kids to wear a condom; meanwhile HIV/AIDS continues to increase in men ahving sex with men in the US.
Because it affects me, my kids, and our society; that's why I'm obsessed about it. Because if people talked about it more, we wouldn't be talking about changing the definition of marriage; we'd be talking about how abstinence from sodomy as a means for preventing illness.
Because those loving couples are obsessed with getting our approval.
Michael,
Why do insist on withholding thaqt approval?
If you simply GAVE it, or just turned a blind eye, no one would be asking you for anything.
So you admit, Zak, that you are demanding that people think and feel the way you want them to. When the government gets into the business of doing that, they are claiming authority over people's minds and attitudes. That's too Orwellian for my taste.
I will get on with my life as soon as I am assured that the government will decline to sponsor your moral standards and attempt to force them onto society.
So, you say that only YOUR moral standards are acceptable? Only YOUR religion is acceptable? Only people jsut like YOU can be allowed to have a good life?
Do you see the problem with this? You would have a country full of clones if you were in charge. No one would be any different than you are.
The world is full of diverse forms of life. Humanity if full of diverse races colors and creeds. Learn to live with that. You will find more happiness in your life if you can accept that. If you continue to fight it, you will continue to be miserable.
Zak, the SSM issue is not really about marriage; it is about the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over all other considerations, including the societal significance of marriage as a social institution.
Meanwhile, the pro-SSM argumentatin with its obvious gaycentric rhetoric, does not propose moral neutrality. Quite the contrary. It proposes that the marriage idea is barely tolerable in our laws and culture.
Why? Because of whatever SSMers imagine to be the importance to society of same-sex sexual behavior. Whatever they imagine they fail to put in plain language. Instead, they, like you, attempt to hide their demand for moral approbation behind a supposed wall of public moral neutrality. Like you, they say that same-sex sexual behavior is not the business of society. Which contradicts their pro-SSM complaint that same-sex sexual behavior is of the utmost importance to their pro-SSM remedy -- to impose a public status, on par with the special status of marraige, on no other basis than assertions made in favor of societal approval of that behavior.
Marital status is a public status; the licensing scheme serves the societal purpose in according marriage its special status in our laws and culture.
The SSM idea is a rejection of the core meaning of the foundational social institution of civil society.
Hence the conflict of ideas removes your hiding place in supposed moral neutrality.