Im moving to Canada!
by Bobosan on Mar.23, 2005, under Main
Good Lord…equality! You dont have to like or support gays to acknowlege they have rights you know…
And to think I voted Republican for Gov'nr . Too bad the Democrat was a lame duck…and totally worthless!
Indiana House OKs gay-marriage ban
By Mary Beth Schneider
mary.beth.schneider@indystar.com
March 23, 2005
The first chapter in the controversial effort to change Indiana's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage ended Tuesday with the state House of Representatives voting overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment.
All 52 Republicans supported the measure and were joined by 24 Democrats. The 76-23 vote came after more than an hour of emotional, but resigned, debate from supporters and opponents.
There was no repeat of the public outbursts that marred a House hearing on the bill earlier this month. Instead, only a few people were in the House gallery, looking down quietly on the lawmakers as they argued and voted.
The issue is now over for at least this year. For the amendment to become part of the constitution, the legislature elected in November 2006 must again debate and approve the measure.
After that, the public will have the final say, as voters must approve the change. The earliest that can happen is on the general election ballot in November 2008.
“This debate doesn't end today,” said Rep. Troy Woodruff, R-Vincennes. “It ends in the hands of the people.”
Many Democrats called the proposed amendment a vote to discriminate.
“Today will go down as a day of shame in the history of the General Assembly,” said Rep. David Orentlicher, D-Indianapolis.
The public, he said, may not remember other bills lawmakers pass this year. But, he said, “they will not forget we wrote second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians into the constitution.”
Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka, told his colleagues: “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I don't believe the constitution should be used for political wedge issues.”
And, he added, “I'm not a bigot.”
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Howe, told his colleagues he loved his uncle “who has chosen to live a homosexual lifestyle.”
But, he said, he was concerned about what kind of world his 3-year-old son would grow up in. Marriage, he said, has always been between one man and one woman and always should be.
“It's not a political issue,” he said, prompting scoffs from some Democrats.
The issue was a key part of some GOP campaigns for the House in 2004, as Republicans lambasted Democrats for not allowing a vote on the amendment last year.
Rep. Phil Hoy, D-Evansville, said he was vilified in the November election, his first. In that campaign, he was attacked with TV ads showing two grooms on top of a wedding cake and two men pushing a baby carriage.
And, he said, he knows his vote against the amendment “will be used against me, again and again.”
But as the father of an adopted biracial child and the grandfather of five biracial grandchildren, he said, he could not vote for an amendment that he believes discriminates.
He and Rep. Win Moses, D-Fort Wayne, said an amendment goes too far. It not only defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it also says no law shall be construed to grant “the legal incidents of marriage” to any other couples — words that Moses charged were just too vague.
“If in fact we can't even define a constitutional amendment, how can we possibly pass it?” he asked.
Rep. Eric Turner, the Marion Republican who was the House sponsor of the measure — officially Senate Joint Resolution 7 — said the amendment is needed to protect marriage, which he said is a foundation of society that was laid long before government.
“Today is about truly defending the institution of marriage,” Turner said.
A couple of hours after the vote, a lone protester stood in the rain outside the legislators' parking lot on the north side of the Statehouse, holding two signs.
“No one is a born bigot,” declared one.
The other: “Cowards in the House.”
Indiana, like 43 other states, already has a law prohibiting gay marriage, and that law has been upheld by an Indiana appeals court. Turner noted that by the end of 2006, it is expected that 26 states will have passed constitutional amendments to ensure that a judge cannot overturn those states' laws.