Gay Marriage comes to Indiana?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The Senate passed the amended bill. Which means it will not be on the ballot this year, and the legislative process must begin again.

[Mr. Illini]

Good to see the state to the east has moved on from this, at least for now. Approving this would have just solidified Midwesterners' perception that Indiana is backwards and the "south of the north."

No offense to the gentleman from NW Indiana.

[Hifly]

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

Also, it's good to hear that the amendment is going to come without the ban on civil unions.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

This is again all true. However, I think you've misunderstood me; I may have not made it entirely clear. I never said that marriage is not about property and simply about love between men and women before Jesus etc. The rights that marriage bestows upon the subjects involved are the most significant feature of the union (which I why I oppose the many arguments which insist that emotional attraction between members of the same sex is the defining reason as to why we should legalise gay marriage). However, it is important to distinguish what a right is and what the definition of marriage is (the union of one man and one woman recognised by law by which they become husband and wife). The legal property aspects of marriage fall under the rights associated and not the definition, so statements which assert notions such as "women becoming mens' property once formed part of the definition and so why can't we change it again", which is what someone I was responding to below wrote, are fallacious. I know I'm being picky about semantics but I think that it's important.

Also, calling me "not particularly bright" was entirely uncalled for.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

Also, it's good to hear that the amendment is going to come without the ban on civil unions.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

This is again all true. However, I think you've misunderstood me; I may have not made it entirely clear. I never said that marriage is not about property and simply about love between men and women before Jesus etc. The rights that marriage bestows upon the subjects involved are the most significant feature of the union (which I why I oppose the many arguments which insist that emotional attraction between members of the same sex is the defining reason as to why we should legalise gay marriage). However, it is important to distinguish what a right is and what the definition of marriage is (the union of one man and one woman recognised by law by which they become husband and wife). The legal property aspects of marriage fall under the rights associated and not the definition, so statements which assert notions such as "women becoming mens' property once formed part of the definition and so why can't we change it again", which is what someone I was responding to below wrote, are fallacious. I know I'm being picky about semantics but I think that it's important.

Also, calling me "not particularly bright" was entirely uncalled for.

Again, rights are the very thing that establish the entire legal marriage.  If there are no rights, there is no reason for the state to recognize marriages in the first place, and there is no need for a 'definition of marriage.'  What you don't seem to understand is that the definition of marriage and the legal rights that it entails are inseparable.  Your emphasis on semantics not only distracts from the issue at hand, but the "argument" itself falls flat on its face.

If you don't believe marriage is between two people who emotionally attracted to each other, then there's no reason to call it 'marriage' in the first place.

[Hifly]

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

Also, it's good to hear that the amendment is going to come without the ban on civil unions.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

This is again all true. However, I think you've misunderstood me; I may have not made it entirely clear. I never said that marriage is not about property and simply about love between men and women before Jesus etc. The rights that marriage bestows upon the subjects involved are the most significant feature of the union (which I why I oppose the many arguments which insist that emotional attraction between members of the same sex is the defining reason as to why we should legalise gay marriage). However, it is important to distinguish what a right is and what the definition of marriage is (the union of one man and one woman recognised by law by which they become husband and wife). The legal property aspects of marriage fall under the rights associated and not the definition, so statements which assert notions such as "women becoming mens' property once formed part of the definition and so why can't we change it again", which is what someone I was responding to below wrote, are fallacious. I know I'm being picky about semantics but I think that it's important.

Also, calling me "not particularly bright" was entirely uncalled for.

Again, rights are the very thing that establish the entire legal marriage.  If there are no rights, there is no reason for the state to recognize marriages in the first place, and there is no need for a 'definition of marriage.'  What you don't seem to understand is that the definition of marriage and the legal rights that it entails are inseparable.  Your emphasis on semantics not only distracts from the issue at hand, but the "argument" itself falls flat on its face.

If you don't believe marriage is between two people who emotionally attracted to each other, then there's no reason to call it 'marriage' in the first place.

That's basically what I've said; you've misunderstood my post. And, as I have emphasised above, "love" is not the only reason why marriage exists and thus I don't agree with the notion that "love" is a reason to change the legal definition of marriage when we can easily address any rights issues by legalising or strengthening civil unions which award the same legal rights to a same-sex couple as a marriage does to a man and a woman.

[SteveRogers]

However, it is important to distinguish what a right is and what the definition of marriage is (the union of one man and one woman recognised by law by which they become husband and wife).

Ah, so that's it is it? Finally, the factual, literary, and historical definition of marriage? The definition that has never ever changed throughout time and has never ever implied the treatment of a woman as property to be exchanged between a father and a husband? But "union" seems a bit vague, doesn't it? Surely an Oxford scholar like yourself can be a bit more precise than that. Tell me, what is the factual, literary, and historical definition of that word? Are you contending that at no point in history would the term of art "union between a man and a woman" have been understood to suggest a loss of individual identity for the woman involved?

I know I'm being picky about semantics but I think that it's important.

Semantics is awfully weak grounds for denying a group of people equal treatment under the law. You might be literally right that for most of history most people would understand the dictionary definition of "marriage" to be "a union between a man and a woman," but the dictionary definition is not all there is to a word's meaning. As we all learned in middle school, a word's meaning includes both denotation and connotation. At different points in time those words (and the combination thereof) have carried various connotations. At a certain point in history talk of a "union between a man and a woman," whatever the denotation of the individual words, would have been understood to entail the treatment of the woman as property. We look back on that meaning now and understand it to be wrong. The arrangement of the words didn't change, but the meaning of their combination did.

In exactly the same way, we can understand today that taking marriage to mean "a union between a man and a woman" is flawed. The word "marriage" has historically carried with it connotations of sacredness and of legitimacy even if those words aren't in the dictionary entry. Defining "marriage" as something between a man and a woman therefore implies that a union between two people of opposite sex is something less than that. The word then becomes a tool that can be used to discriminate. Because we, as a society, understand today that homosexuals are just ordinary people with the same capacity for entering into meaningful unions as heterosexuals, we can, as a society, decide that changing the arrangement of the words in the dictionary ever so slightly is a small price to pay for preserving the true meaning and the essence of the word "marriage." 

TL; DR: Semantics isn't as much on your side as you believe. Words have power and importance that extends far beyond the way they are arranged in the dictionary. The validity of your argument depends on what the definition of "definition" is.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

Also, it's good to hear that the amendment is going to come without the ban on civil unions.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

This is again all true. However, I think you've misunderstood me; I may have not made it entirely clear. I never said that marriage is not about property and simply about love between men and women before Jesus etc. The rights that marriage bestows upon the subjects involved are the most significant feature of the union (which I why I oppose the many arguments which insist that emotional attraction between members of the same sex is the defining reason as to why we should legalise gay marriage). However, it is important to distinguish what a right is and what the definition of marriage is (the union of one man and one woman recognised by law by which they become husband and wife). The legal property aspects of marriage fall under the rights associated and not the definition, so statements which assert notions such as "women becoming mens' property once formed part of the definition and so why can't we change it again", which is what someone I was responding to below wrote, are fallacious. I know I'm being picky about semantics but I think that it's important.

Also, calling me "not particularly bright" was entirely uncalled for.

Again, rights are the very thing that establish the entire legal marriage.  If there are no rights, there is no reason for the state to recognize marriages in the first place, and there is no need for a 'definition of marriage.'  What you don't seem to understand is that the definition of marriage and the legal rights that it entails are inseparable.  Your emphasis on semantics not only distracts from the issue at hand, but the "argument" itself falls flat on its face.

If you don't believe marriage is between two people who emotionally attracted to each other, then there's no reason to call it 'marriage' in the first place.

But you're insisting that the 'rights' and 'definition' of marriage are distinguishable things.  Semantics-wise, that might be the case, but legally they are so essential to each other that you cannot divorce the two in any meaningful way.  Indeed, the legal property aspect of marriage falls under both the rights associated and the definition, because if you exclude one of those things, you can't have the other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For most cases in the United States, people get married to each other precisely because they are in love.  People choose who they want to marry because of the affection they have for each other, unlike other countries where you marry who and when at the discretion of your parents.  Civil unions aren't objectionable if they guarantee the same rights as a marriage, but then why bother calling it anything other than a marriage?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Good to see the state to the east has moved on from this, at least for now. Approving this would have just solidified Midwesterners' perception that Indiana is backwards and the "south of the north."

No offense to the gentleman from NW Indiana.

It's the legislature that's the problem, not Hoosiers.

The general public ties on legalizing gay marriage (45%-45%), supports civil unions (55%), but opposes amending the Constitution to ban it by ever-increasing margins, from 47%-46% opposed in 2011, to 54%-38% opposing early 2013, to 58%-33% opposing late 2013.

Ban supporters hoped to get it on the ballot this year to take advantage of reduced turnout(as happend in NC in early 2012), but now that the earliest it can be voted on is 2016, when turnout will be huge and attitudes more permissive. And SCOTUS almost certainly will take up the issue again within the next few years, possibly rendering the point moot.

[Mr. Illini]

Good to see the state to the east has moved on from this, at least for now. Approving this would have just solidified Midwesterners' perception that Indiana is backwards and the "south of the north."

No offense to the gentleman from NW Indiana.

It's the legislature that's the problem, not Hoosiers.

The general public ties on legalizing gay marriage (45%-45%), supports civil unions (55%), but opposes amending the Constitution to ban it by ever-increasing margins, from 47%-46% opposed in 2011, to 54%-38% opposing early 2013, to 58%-33% opposing late 2013.

Ban supporters hoped to get it on the ballot this year to take advantage of reduced turnout(as happend in NC in early 2012), but now that the earliest it can be voted on is 2016, when turnout will be huge and attitudes more permissive. And SCOTUS almost certainly will take up the issue again within the next few years, possibly rendering the point moot.

Certainly, although Indiana is generally more conservative than the rest of the Midwest, even accounting for conservative rural areas in the other states.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

a) Tony Abbott went to Oxford... so... that carries no weight.

b) This whole "strengthen Civil Unions, give them all the rights of marriage... but don't call it that!!!!!" Is just so fundamentally silly and illogical to me.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

b) This whole "strengthen Civil Unions, give them all the rights of marriage... but don't call it that!!!!!" Is just so fundamentally silly and illogical to me.

It's a part of the evolution process. All in good time, bud.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

b) This whole "strengthen Civil Unions, give them all the rights of marriage... but don't call it that!!!!!" Is just so fundamentally silly and illogical to me.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the idea of abolishing the state recognition of marriage, with "civil unions" being granted for all couples, and marriage being left to churches/religious institutions as a ceremony? I feel that abolishing the marriage license entirely may appease all sides without the whole “civil unions but not marriage” claim.

[Hifly]

a) Tony Abbott went to Oxford... so... that carries no weight.

He went as a postgraduate, not as an undergraduate which is the highly competitive field.

[CountryClassSF]

Sounds like the Democrat-lite GOP sold us down the river again. Surprise surprise. Just let the people vote. If people are "evolving," what do social liberals have to worry about?

[SteveRogers]

Sounds like the Democrat-lite GOP sold us down the river again. Surprise surprise. Just let the people vote. If people are "evolving," what do social liberals have to worry about?

Constitutional rights > public opinion. Again.

[CountryClassSF]

Sounds like the Democrat-lite GOP sold us down the river again. Surprise surprise. Just let the people vote. If people are "evolving," what do social liberals have to worry about?

Constitutional rights > public opinion. Again.

Where does the constitution say two men and two women can get hitched? Is it near that provision that the founding fathers put in that allows for abortion on demand?

Or is it a constitutional right because it's something you desire/want?

[SteveRogers]

Sounds like the Democrat-lite GOP sold us down the river again. Surprise surprise. Just let the people vote. If people are "evolving," what do social liberals have to worry about?

Constitutional rights > public opinion. Again.

Where does the constitution say two men and two women can get hitched? Is it near that provision that the founding fathers put in that allows for abortion on demand?

Or is it a constitutional right because it's something you desire/want?

Nowhere. The constitution doesn't grant a right to marriage. Nothing in the constitution compels any state to grant marriage benefits to anyone. But the 14th amendment's equal protection clause indicates that IF the state is going to grant recognition and benefits to the union of one couple, THEN they should have to grant it to the union of all couples without discriminating. 

[CountryClassSF]

Sounds like the Democrat-lite GOP sold us down the river again. Surprise surprise. Just let the people vote. If people are "evolving," what do social liberals have to worry about?

Constitutional rights > public opinion. Again.

Where does the constitution say two men and two women can get hitched? Is it near that provision that the founding fathers put in that allows for abortion on demand?

Or is it a constitutional right because it's something you desire/want?

Nowhere. The constitution doesn't grant a right to marriage. Nothing in the constitution compels any state to grant marriage benefits to anyone. But the 14th amendment's equal protection clause indicates that IF the state is going to grant recognition and benefits to the union of one couple, THEN they should have to grant it to the union of all couples without discriminating. 

Okay, so this includes polygamists and family members that are related to eachother?

[SteveRogers]

Sounds like the Democrat-lite GOP sold us down the river again. Surprise surprise. Just let the people vote. If people are "evolving," what do social liberals have to worry about?

Constitutional rights > public opinion. Again.

Where does the constitution say two men and two women can get hitched? Is it near that provision that the founding fathers put in that allows for abortion on demand?

Or is it a constitutional right because it's something you desire/want?

Nowhere. The constitution doesn't grant a right to marriage. Nothing in the constitution compels any state to grant marriage benefits to anyone. But the 14th amendment's equal protection clause indicates that IF the state is going to grant recognition and benefits to the union of one couple, THEN they should have to grant it to the union of all couples without discriminating. 

Okay, so this includes polygamists and family members that are related to eachother?

Not necessarily. Slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy for a reason. Courts may have to address those cases when they arise, but neither really involves discrimination based on an innate personal characteristic, so they aren't analogous.

[CountryClassSF]

I wasn't aware characteristics were civil rights.

Why is it so important to you that the homosexualist agenda is is shoved in our faces?

[SteveRogers]

I wasn't aware characteristics were civil rights.

Why is it so important to you that the homosexualist agenda is is shoved in our faces?

1. The constitutional right at stake is the right to equal protection under the law.

1. That's not a word.

2. How is fact of gay people getting married, generally a private concern, somehow considerd "shoving an agenda in your face?"

[tmthforu94]

Why should I be denied the right to visiting rights for my spouse while a heterosexual can do that? Surely you don't believe homosexuality is a choice considering the fact that you are one and haven't been able to cleanse yourself of this awful disease.

This is either an extremely delusional person or a troll.

[CountryClassSF]

Why should I be denied the right to visiting rights for my spouse while a heterosexual can do that? Surely you don't believe homosexuality is a choice considering the fact that you are one and haven't been able to cleanse yourself of this awful disease.

This is either an extremely delusional person or a troll.

Despite this leftist-esque rudeness, I'm happy to let you know:

A) No human being would *ever* deny you the ability to see your loved one in the hospital.
B) Arrangements do not require marriage to be redefined.
C) Contractual arrangements can be made.
D) Just because I disagree with your worldview, doesn't make me a troll.
E) Label me all you want - everyone is different, everyone has different ideas.

[afleitch]

I wasn't aware characteristics were civil rights.

Why is it so important to you that the homosexualist agenda is is shoved in our faces?

Why is it important to shove your right wing agenda in mine? Being right wing is a choice so go do it at home and keep it away from children.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure how a ballot initiative with one side blaring the horns of confidence of inevitability of same-sex 'marriage' is shoving an agenda into your face.

You have forced this new definition of marriage on us, that's just the bottom line. That's the real reason for all of this is for Christians to feel upset. That's my opinion as to why this is happening.