Skip to comments.Indiana House approves constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages
Posted on 01/28/2014 2:42:09 PM PST by tcrlafEdited on 01/28/2014 3:29:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They KNOW it means huge numbers of average people, who donb't vote for a living, will turn out to vote against it, as has happened in every state that has been allowed to vote on it.
I wonder if this thread will be flooded by those who oppose this action.
Most gay marriage threads get taken over by them.
Why, why, this is something the TALIBAN would do. Oh wait, the taliban would actually KILL the fagola.
Only to have some activist judge come along and knock it down.
Congrats to Indiana! Voting for my state’s constitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman was one of the three votes in my life that I was most proud of casting. The other two being for Reagan in ‘88 and for Palin in ‘08.
I was married for half my life and was miserable.
Anybody who wants to share that kind of misery is welcome to do so in my book.
What are the chances in the senate, and the guv’s desk?
I thought they already had an amendment.
Oops, I meant Reagan in ‘84.
Hooray, Indiana! Maybe you’ll lead the way for other states and start the return to sanity.
Of course, all this means is that homo “marriage” is ultimately destined to be decided by the Supreme Court.
I only oppose the fact that the Democraps git the camels nose in the tent by removing the civil union ban. Other than that it’s great news. God bless Indiana. Went demo once.... never again!
Strange, most of the folks who want to surrender to the gay agenda nationally claim we should "send it back to the states" and wash our hands of it, so they should be happy the STATE of Indiana is doing as they on the STATE level.
“send it back to the states”
But it SHOULD be a state issue, same way as some states recognize common-law marriage and some don’t, some have different age limits, some allow first cousins to marry, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I’m totally against gay “marriage”. Here in Washington State it got jammed through in spite of the fact that some of us troglodytes said no. I’m just saying the Constitution doesn’t touch on it so the power is not the Feds’ to use.
The Judge Shopping Begins.
I wasn’t talking about those, I meant the many here who rather than talking about fighting gay marriage politically and legislatively, have fallen into escapism, and just go on fantasying endlessly about wanting to just remove all marriage/divorce law in America.
begs the question ... why did they not do this years ago?
No, in 2012 voters in Minnesota rejected an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
And how well did that work with the slavery issue? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I agree many things should be left up to individual states, but they don't have the "right" to do things like redefine natural law, claiming black people are not humans or call something "marriage" that is biologically impossible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.