Gay Marriage Archive

The Bell Curve: I do….

(Learn More about Rex Bell at his campaign website, Rex Bell for US Congress, D6)

I’ve never been what you would call “athletically inclined”. I did manage to make a basket once when I was on the 6th grade basketball team at Millville Grade School, when my old buddy Stinky Wilmont yelled “shoot it” at the final buzzer. Of course, that shot missed the backboard, but I did manage to hit the first of two free throws I was awarded when a fellow bench warmer from the opposing team stuck his finger in my eye while he was blocking my field goal. Even though I was able to cut the margin of our defeat that game down to 27 points, nobody asked me to play on the 7th grade team the next year, and what little interest I had in basketball faded quickly away.

Read the rest of this entry »

Is Personal Freedom in Indiana a Constitutional Right or Unauthorized Government Control?

(By Phyllis Klosinski of Brown County)

This Indiana Constitution language is explicit, limiting and deliberate, it controls government not YOU.

“No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.

The Libertarian Party Platform adheres to the Constitutional constraints protecting YOUR sole dominion over YOUR life.  The Libertarian Party is committed to protecting theses rights, and stopping a government that over steps its boundaries.

This is why Libertarians oppose any law that keeps two people from living their lives as they wish.It’s why we oppose the government dictating to us the terms of marriage for anyone, not just same-sex couples.

Do Indiana Court Rulings over-rule the Constitution and your guaranteed inalienable rights of individual personal freedom? Rulings such as Morrison v. Sadler 2005 which determined:

“The State has no burden to demonstrate that the statute is constitutional, the burden is entirely upon the Plaintiff (The anti-gay marriage amendment side) to overcome the presumption of constitutionality and to establish a constitutional violation”;

Only the Indiana Constitution contains the authority for Legislators to consider passage of laws and only if those laws adhere to the provisions of the Constitution.

The Indiana Constitution does not contain any authority for the passage of laws which provide government control of marriage. The Amendment adding Section 38 defining marriage in civil law terms will impose unlimited government authority to define, condition, limit and control marriage.

The Constitution is the sole source of authority, therefore current Indiana Code which defines marriage, prohibitions and any and all requirements, licenses, terms, and conditions are not authorized by any current section of the Constitution.  The passage of this “Marriage” Amendment would legalize the aspects of family law which are now not authorized under the same Constitution.

Some in the government claim government control is necessary to protect marriage, but none explain how the statutes controlling personal choice, including marriage, were ever enacted into law absent the required mandatory Constitutional authority.  Instead Indiana Legislators have chosen to make statutes legal after the fact.

If you think Indiana is protecting you consider the language contained in amendments to HJR-6:

“The legislature has the power to define marriage and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage”:  “Marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall remain permanent until death do they part”.

Further consider SB 119 “ Covenant marriage” controlling by civil contract the lifelong commitment of marriage and HB 1248 requiring “The office of the secretary shall review research based marriage and relationship curricula for the purposes of IC 31-11-4.5-2(3)(F) and approve curricula that meets the criteria established by the office of the secretary”.

And finally SB 2 defining the “Authority to solemnize marriages” all authorizing Indiana to make personal determinations not authorized by the Constitution by nullifying YOUR Rights.

Every individual within Indiana law is under attack by even the proposal of laws which do not adhere to the Constitution, we must all set our individual preferences aside and unite to protect all equally.

The principles of the LP Platform are available for everyone, but YOU are the driving engine, YOU must protect Your Rights!   In a series of comparisons between Constitutional Rights and proposed and enacted legislation, LP will provide continued information for the necessity of all citizens to act now to protect themselves from an out of control limitless Indiana government.

Ron Paul, CPAC and Loathing by the Ideologically Unprincipled and Intellectually Dishonest

(By Sean Shepard, Originally posted at Shepard on Politics and Policy)

Conservatives have a real problem in Texas congressman Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn’t think the United States should claim to be all about “freedom” and “democracy” while sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to foreign dictators. The people of Egypt just rose up and booted out Mubarak whom the U.S. sent billions of dollars to each year. The Ba’ath Party in Iraq was supported early on by the U.S. and Saddam was all buddy-buddy with America for many years before we sought “regime change”. In 1979 the people of Iran tossed out the increasingly brutal Shah Pahlavi whom the U.S. and Britain had put put in power, replacing their secular (non religious) democracy in 1953.

I mean, it’s not like the people in these countries aren’t backwards cave people who don’t know that the United States has funded and supported the same governments and leaders that have secret police kidnapping political dissenters off the streets, won’t let women drive or vote or sometimes even punishes them with whippings, jail or being stoned to death for having gotten raped.

Former Pakistani President Musharraf, a military dictator, whom the U.S. sent billions and billions of dollars to each year just had an arrest warrant issued for him over the assassination of his political opposition, Benazir Bhutto, prior to the election. Yay! Hey, thanks U.S. Government for sending my tax money to a murderous, anti-democracy dictator who has women assassinated.

Ron Paul doesn’t think the Federal Reserve should be able to just print money out of thin air, decreasing the value of the money already in circulation (including our savings) so that they can cover the massive deficits and out of control spending of our ridiculously bloated government while the rest of the world laughs at us. Has anyone else noticed the rest of the world starting to demand that the U.S. Dollar no longer be a key reserve currency and even China, a Communist Country whom we will borrow our entire military budget from (and then some) this year, is starting to rethink how far they will let us extend ourselves with them.

div>Ron Paul doesn’t think that the Federal Government should be regulating religious rituals like marriage that a lot of us really think should be controlled by each person’s respective church or religious beliefs. Nope, he doesn’t think that the opinions of some people should be forced, by threat of government violence, on everyone else.

Ron Paul really means it when he talks about shrinking the Federal Government, making sure it minds its own business and actually protects not just the personal safety and freedom of Americans but our economic freedom and security as well.

A lot of conservatives like to talk about how they want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets. Yeah, well people in other countries want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets too. You want to stop terrorism against the United States? Heaven forbid we consider starting by not pissing off a whole region of the world with a hypocritical foreign policy.

Small government conservatives shouldn’t be calling for the Government to not only take over marriage from the church; but, as the proposed Constitutional Amendment in Indiana would call for – actually banning voluntary, contractual agreements between people that might look too much like some kind of arrangement similar to that married people have. Yeah, banning voluntary, contractual agreements between consenting adults is exactly what small government conservative folks should be promoting. Idiots.

One of the elected politicians that represents me in the Indiana State House, and one of the few I respect quite a bit, pointed out how some of the same people who praised Governor Mitch Daniels’ great speech at CPAC spent the very next day blasting and criticizing CPAC for Ron Paul’s victory in their Straw Poll. Well, just keep this mind. As a Facebook post pointed out, “Ron Paul won that straw poll with 30% of the vote by INSPIRING people to be there. Mitt ‘RomneyCare’ Romney came in second place with 23% by PAYING people to be there.

Nobody else garnered more than 6% and, thank goodness for small miracles, Sarah Palin only got 3% with the much more deserving Mitch Daniels ahead of her at 4%.

For all of the railing against the government takeover of healthcare under Obama where was all the fuss when George W. Bush pushed through the trillion dollar prescription drug benefit to Medicare? Where are the loud calls and protests to repeal that? Where is the acknowledgment about Mitt’s involvement with Massachusetts so-called “RomneyCare” program? Hey! If the CPAC results are any indication 23% of conservatives agree that government takeovers are okay so long as a Republican does it!

So, yeah, there are a bunch of us out there who want a little (or a lot of) intellectual honesty and consistency from our politicians and our government. But, until we get it from the followers and supporters of the two major political party cults (and that’s what they’ve devolved into), we aren’t going to have it from government. And, so, people like Ron Paul pose a problem because he continues to point out the inconsistencies in the current political dialog and our own hypocrisy. Supporters of the status quo, of an oppressive global American empire or people who want to use government to push their hateful, religious anti-gay people agenda really, really hate that.

How did the General Assembly Spend its Thursday Afternoon?

(Editor’s Note: Instead of spending time debating (in the public) the budget, redistricting, school reform, or job creation/tax reform, the Indiana House of Representatives worked on restricting freedom and trying to control Indiana’s population. This is a recap of Thursday’s “marriage strengthening” debate.)

By Evan McMahon, Executive Director of Atlas Liberty PAC

On Thursday the Indiana House of Representatives held a vote with limited debate on an amendment to remove the second line from HJR-6, an amendment to the Indiana State Constitution banning all recognition of any form of same-sex union. The amendment failed 32-60, not along party lines.

“Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Most, if not all, of the supporters of the change to HJR-6 said that it was over the ambiguity of “substantially similar” and the fear that these two words could have far reaching and unintended consequences.

Rep. Terri Austin (D-Anderson), who authored Thursday’s failed amendment, said during the debate “I think we can uphold the institution of marriage and still protect fundamental rights that people who may live, believe and love differently than we do are entitled to.”

I’m left questioning what makes Mrs. Austin think that by simply removing “substantially similar” from this constitutional amendment that the state would be protecting the “fundamental rights” of effected Hoosiers?
In response to questions as to why the state needs a constitutional amendment when there is already a state statute banning same-sex marriage, Rep. Eric Turner (R-Cicero), author of HJR-6, said the amendment is needed to prevent activist judges from voiding the current law. Turner went on to cite a similar case in Iowa where judges had struck down a state statute for violating the Iowa Constitution. He pointed to the strict language of other states. But he also said this amendment is not an attack on any one group or community.

I question this since Indiana DoMa (Defense of Marriage Act) has been around since 1997 and was upheld as constitutional in Morrison v. Sadler (Jan. 20th 2005).

IC 31-11-1-1
Same sex marriages prohibited

Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.
(b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.

Rep. Ralph Foley (R- Martinsville) was correct when he said that marriage is not a religious term, but a legal term defined by the state. He said this as a deflection from the argument that this measure to define marriage in the state constitution is a religious effort.

Rep. Ed DeLaney (D-Indianapolis) called that very argument into question. He insisted that the members of the Assembly be honest with their motives for supporting HJR-6. He stated he felt that most of this measure’s supporters are doing it for religious reasons not out of some civil protection.

DeLaney went on to address the notion that this will not impact contracts, as Rep. Turner suggested. If people are not afforded any “legal status” their contracts, wills, bank and parental instructions, medical visitation and power of attorney forms can all be successfully challenged in court by an ‘unsupportive’ or hostile family member.

There are also questions to whether an employer can offer health benefits to their employee’s same-sex partner. Under the new Federal healthcare law it is unclear what is and isn’t covered by the state. For sure we know that if that matter was to go to court for resolution, the couple would have no legal status.
Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington) cited logical economic reasons for supporting the removal of the second line. He shared a story about a gay couple who relocated their businesses and all of their assets to Bloomington, Indiana after their home state of Virginia passed a constitutional amendment almost identical to the currently proposed one. After spending countless hours and vast amounts of money making sure they were legally protecting each other in the event of death or dissolution…they were advised by a lawyer that their ‘paper work’ was probably no longer valid in Virginia.

Pierce said that the couple was an asset to the community and that he feared they would leave, with their businesses, if HJR-6 was passed in its current form.

Rep. Sheila Klinker (D-Lafayette) spoken of the gay and lesbian teens she worked with as a teacher. How touched she was when they spoke to her of the respect that she had shown them in the classroom. She said at one point, “The State and US Constitution were written to protect people’s rights, not to take them away.”

Since the amendment to HJR-6 died 32-60 the full resolution will now move to a floor vote in the coming weeks.

LPIN Press Release: Republicans and Democrats Seek To Add Discrimination to the Constitution

Despite the Governor’s call to avoid wading in to divisive issues, The Indiana Republican Party has ignored the head of their party by trying to make discrimination a permanent part of the Indiana Constitution. HJR-6 is a bill that will define marriage between one man and one woman. It is co-authored by two Republicans and two Democrats.

The Libertarian Party of Indiana affirms that personal relationships are an individual’s choice and government has no authority to define, license or restrict marriage. This Constitutional amendment increases the power of the government over the lives of all Hoosiers, and is designed to discriminate against homosexual couples.

“The very first section of the Indiana Constitution states that all people are created equal,” said Sam Goldstein, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Indiana. “All consenting adults should have equal protections under Indiana law when making a personal and private decision to share their life with someone. Its mind boggling that Republicans would campaign on personal liberty, and then seek to add discrimination to the Constitution. Democrats should also be upset that their legislators are co-sponsoring this bill, and the Indiana Democratic Party has been silent through this process. Where are their principles?”

Goldstein continued, “Employers that are looking to relocate their business will have a hard time choosing Indiana over other states if we allow our government to force those business owners to deny benefits for ALL of their employees. This is a very bad bill for jobs as well.”

In this current session of the General Assembly, both parties have sought to “strengthen marriage.” One Republican idea is adding a pre-marriage class to the license process (HB 1248).

“It’s clear that the Republican Party of Indiana has failed in its promise to stop the tide of government control brought on by Democrats,” said Executive Director Chris Spangle. “They have a super majority in the Senate and close to 60 votes in the House. If they were serious about a small government, they have the ability to bring it about. We’re almost halfway through the session, and there has been a limited discussion of budgetary issues.”

Media Contact: Chris Spangle, 317-920-1994

LPIN speaks out against the Indiana Gay Marriage Amendment, SJR-13

LPIN Executive Director Chris Spangle speaks out against the Indiana Gay Marriage Amendment at the Indiana Equality Action press conference on Wednesday.