Hey, at least we're not as bad as Ohio...yet
Same-sex marriage ban defeated
It was defeated by a tie vote in committee. There is always next year for the religious right, but for now at least we're not on the way to being like Ohio and the other 25 other states with constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
It was defeated by a tie vote in committee. There is always next year for the religious right, but for now at least we're not on the way to being like Ohio and the other 25 other states with constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
posted by torporindy at 4/03/2007
7 Comments:
Sweet! I think it was the pro-business lobby that killed it, not any poke in the conscience of the legislators.
Yeah. Also, a lot of the Democrats would have voted for it if not for the second paragraph.
"Marriage in Indiana consists of only the union of one man and one woman.
"This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Oh, don't get me wrong, the True Believers (and those scared of the whack-job right) would have voted for it anyway - I think the big push from the business lobby, mainly concerned with the second paragraph, gave them the excuse they needed to kill it.
Rep. Terri Austin (D-Anderson) gave a tearful explanation of her vote.
"I hope that when I leave here, nobody goes out and says, Representative Terri Austin supports gay marriage, because it's not true and everybody knows it. But I also am not gonna be reckless in wanton in my decisions that affect the lives of six million Hoosiers. I have cried over this. I have prayed over it. I have sought the advice of everybody I know to try to make a decision that's right in my heart and I know some people are gonna be disappointed in me and I'll accept it. And I'm gonna lose the respect of folks that I hold dear, but with that, Mr. Chairman, and for those reasons, and because we are unwilling to give this issue more time right now, which I hope we can, I'm gonna vote no," said Austin.
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6321574&nav=9Tai
It's a bit offensive to me, as a lesbian who is also a feminist and supporter of rights that mostly affect straight women (choice, for example), that the domestic violence lobby seems to have thrown us under the bus (i.e., paragraph 1) and focused exclusively on the problems of paragraph 2. I understand politics, I understand pragmatism, and I understand picking one's battles. But somehow I would have hoped that my sisters would have had the balls to stand with me and say "hey, this whole thing just ain't right."
I still fail to understand why the state has any place formally recognizing "marriage" at all.
I've said it a hundred times: let businesses, churches, clubs, etc. decide for themselves what they will and will not recognize as a "marriage" for their own purposes. If two (or more) people involved in some sort of relationship want to have means to deal with property and whatnot should the relationship end, they can make a contract among themselves.
Maybe Indy can get a constitutional admendment next year. We cannot countonthe federal gov to protect marriage.
Post a Comment
<< Home