Well, since the gop voted across the board to support and pass Joint resolution 6 this past session, that would be the anti-gay vote he cast. Government has no business defining marriage between consenting adults. JR 6 passed overwhelmingly, did Hinkle not vote for it? Was he part of the lone 29 or so people who voted against Bosma's wishes?So, what are his allegedly "antigay" votes?
Sj 6 won't be shown at Vote Smart yet, since it requires 2 legislative sessions to become complete. The gop voted overwhelmingly in support of it.I scanned through and did not see any "gay votes". Am I missing something?
I scanned through and did not see any "gay votes". Am I missing something?
So all democrats are anti-heterosexual?
Actually a huge chunk of the Indiana delegation voted right alongside their gop brethren on SJ 6. Less than 30 voted against it. I'd say that puts them all pretty much in the same boat. You can't go wrong in this state taking away rights from an icky minority.So all democrats are anti-heterosexual?
It forbids consenting adults from marrying whom they choose. Except for a chosen few.Color me confused. Not to necessarily encourage the further derailment of this thread, but what rights does SJ6 "take away"?
along with his wife apparently.
Ok - interesting characterization. But, what right was "taken away"? Gay people didn't have the right before, so it couldn't be taken away.It forbids consenting adults from marrying whom they choose. Except for a chosen few.
Come on guys. A cookie cutter family values/religious conservative got busted with a twink and tried to pay him off - along with his wife apparently. His voting record is hypocritical when compared against his personal life. I feel sorry for these types when they get outed. It has to be difficult dealing with such an internal struggle and leading two seperate lives.
True, to an extent, but just because something is already forbidden (which gay marriage is in the state of Indiana. Politicians just want to make it more illegal)., doesn't mean it's not a right. Just that that right is already being infringed upon. Same with gun laws. UnConstitutional on their face, but still the law, despite the right to keep and bear arms.Ok - interesting characterization. But, what right was "taken away"? Gay people didn't have the right before, so it couldn't be taken away.
Unless I misunderstand your point?
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You do realize, though, that the gov't's authority to regulate (even to define) marriage has been around about the same amount of time as gun regulations?True, to an extent, but just because something is already forbidden (which gay marriage is in the state of Indiana. Politicians just want to make it more illegal)., doesn't mean it's not a right.
He wasn't trying to marry the lad, was he?
So all democrats are anti-heterosexual?