Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[IN_Sheepdog]

I'm thinking that Brigham Young would be very disappointed not to live in our time... Therefore, I am looking for a Second Wife to compliment the first one... Can I marry my Dog??? He has been very loyal and is a "good Listener"...

 

[dmarsh8]

I couldn't care less who someone chooses to be with. Its better that someone can be happy than closeted and potentially ruin a sham marriage down the road. It happened to a family friends daughter. Married with 2 kids and dad comes out of the closet. It really messed up the two kids. Had he been able to be with someone he wanted and not hide who he was, maybe it wouldn't have ruined a family. Let people live their lives and keep the government out of my personal life.

He could have been with someone he"wanted". Obviously he wanted to be with his wife, or he was faking it the whole time.(wrong answer)

He had an affair with another man, how is that different than with another woman. He didn't do it because he couldn't legally marry a man.
He did it because of a lack of commitment, and by deciding he was going to dabble in a different lifestyle. He wasn't hiding who he was, he
became what he is, based on a new belief system and thought pattern he "chose", then began to express. Oh, and yes, yes that kind of stuff does mess kids up. I know a guy, who a principle in my elementary school who did the same crap. He chose to become something different, it's not who he was. His family pays the price for it still to this day.

I guess when making excuses, one is as good as another!

 

[zippy23]

anyone in favor of this should stop and think for a minute. one person, just struck down something that a state put in place, and has the authority to put into place. This is a state issue, not a federal issue, and all the people that are claiming this as a victory need to realize this is about one person striking down something based on their political ideals and not based on constitutional law. The people have zero power today, thanks to things like this. Just wait until there is something you are in favor for that one man strikes down based on ideology. Its awful for this country.

 

[Fargo]

It never fails to amaze me when so-called libertarians start rejoicing that they are ruled by unelected lawyers rather than by the laws that the people voted for. This is especially so when it has taken 150 years for anyone to straight facedly litigate the idea the 14th amendment equals gay marriage. I mean it's not like any of the anti-sodomy laws making those acts illegal were challenged back then now were they?

Somehow I doubt that the framers of the 14th amendment had any idea that they were supposedly redefining the legal institution of marriage.

Federally appointed lawyers wearing black robes invading what has always been the domain of the people and the states clearly is not oligarchic at all... 10th amendment be damned!

 

[Henry]

The government will NEVER get out of the marriage business, it will never happen. We say it should or similar but there is nothing that indicates they ever will. With that in mind, waiting for the government to, "get out of the marriage business" before you support marriage equality is the same as NEVER supporting marriage equality. Since the state is involved in marriage then it MUST do so equally, even if that expands the State slightly. It's all or nothing...and nothing isn't going to happen.

You mean if you just sit around and wait for the state to get out something it won't get out of something? Who would have thunk that?

I do not advocate waiting on the state to do anything.

The better fight would be to get the state out of personal relationships. Instead, foolish people on both sides of the issue invite the state FURTHER into the matter and cheer when the state appeases them while intruding further.

Yippee!


(Note: The same holds for national carry...folks foolishly advocate for new law instead of stripping out bad law that prohibits carry that keeps them from exercising their natural right...but that is another topic for another day. Out code books are filled with layers upon layers of bad law which legislatures continue to address with, you guessed it, more bad law. )

 

[mrjarrell]

Yeah, because applying the Constitution to the states is a bad thing. Nothing good could ever come of it. Like winning the war on guns.

 

[Fargo]

Yeah, because applying the Constitution to the states is a bad thing. Nothing good could ever come of it. Like winning the war on guns.

Applying the constitution and making up new meanings for its words 150 years later are two very different things.

I love how much you are savoring judicial rule while displaying anarchist symbols!

 

[Bravo-4-2]

It will be nullified by the Indiana legislature within 3 days and any "marriage" conducted will be voided. Let's not be in such a hurry to destroy one of the many things that has made Indiana one of the best places to live in what used to be America.

 

[AA&E]

Since marriage isn't something the feds are in charge of, per the lack of any specific powers over marriage given to the feds in the US Constitution, I'd tell the judge to cram it. Indiana is appealing the decision by this loonie judge...

Besides...why does any government have the right to tell any of us who we can choose to spend the rest of our lives with?

Lawyers are getting fat over this one....I see some now claim to specialize in same sex divorces....

What right does ANYONE have telling ANYONE else who they should spend their lives with? Let gay people experience the misery the rest of us do.

 

[mrjarrell]

It will be nullified by the Indiana legislature within 3 days and any "marriage" conducted will be voided. Let's not be in such a hurry to destroy one of the many things that has made Indiana one of the best places to live in what used to be America.

No it won't. Senator Long has already stated that nullification efforts will receive short shrift in the state senate. If he wouldn't do it for gun Rights he certainly wouldn't go for nullification over marriage equality.

 

[Fargo]

What right does ANYONE have telling ANYONE else who they should spend their lives with? Let gay people experience the misery the rest of us do.

I was unaware there was any laws against same-sex cohabitation or that they could not engage in any sort of religious ceremony they wanted? Please give me the cite for these laws.

 

[mrjarrell]

Applying the constitution and making up new meanings for its words 150 years later are two very different things.

I love how much you are savoring judicial rule while displaying anarchist symbols!

No new meanings are being made up. Two simply changing it to say that two individual may marry and not keeping it in the realm of what some people would like it to be. Hell, monogamists have already changed the meaning. Polygamy has been the main form of marriage for much of human history and still is in may parts of the world.

 

[Sylvain]

Fabulous news!

 

[AA&E]

anyone is favor of this should stop and think for a minute. one person, just struck down something that a state put in place, and has the authority to put into place. This is a state issue, not a federal issue, and all the people that are claiming this as a victory need to realize this is about one person striking down something based on their political ideals and not based on constitutional law. The people have zero power today, thanks to things like this. Just wait until there is something you are in favor for that one man strikes down based on ideology. Its awful for this country.

But does the state truly have the right to discriminate against a group of people based generally on objections based upon religious beliefs? Provide one similar example that is in practice today? I really couldn't care less either way, but this is a something that seems discriminant from the start.

 

[Fargo]

No new meanings are being made up. Two simply changing it to say that two individual may marry and not keeping it in the realm of what some people would like it to be. Hell, monogamists have already changed the meaning. Polygamy has been the main form of marriage for much of human history and still is in may parts of the world.

So the legal meaning of term "marriage" in Indiana is the same today as it was yesterday?

 

[Denny347]

It never fails to amaze me when so-called libertarians start rejoicing that they are ruled by unelected lawyers rather than by the laws that the people voted for. This is especially so when it has taken 150 years for anyone to straight facedly litigate the idea the 14th amendment equals gay marriage. I mean it's not like any of the anti-sodomy laws making those acts illegal were challenged back then now were they?

Somehow I doubt that the framers of the 14th amendment had any idea that they were supposedly redefining the legal institution of marriage.

Federally appointed lawyers wearing black robes invading what has always been the domain of the people and the states clearly is not oligarchic at all... 10th amendment be damned!

Much the same as the Federal judges did in striking down State laws that discriminate against black people?

Key Supreme Court Cases for Civil Rights

 

[Fargo]

Much the same as the Federal judges did in striking down State laws that discriminate against black people?

Key Supreme Court Cases for Civil Rights

Not even remotely the same. There is a world of difference between applying the 14th amendment to racial discrimination and judicial redefinition of legal terms.

For example when the laws against interracial marriage were struck down, was the term marriage in anyway redefined? The answer is no. Certain prohibited marriages became allowed. The definition of what constituted marriage remained the same.

We still treat certain marriages that same way; for example those of persons too closely related.

 

[AA&E]

I was unaware there was any laws against same-sex cohabitation or that they could not engage in any sort of religious ceremony they wanted? Please give me the cite for these laws.

I used his words.... it's none of your business unless you practice these acts.. The more power you grant in governing the lives of others, the more likely somewhere down the road someone is going to take issue with some aspect of your life. I don't want to see it. Don't want it in view of my kids. But as you state, it still happens. This only provides the same legal recognition everyone else has. I don't see it in an 'oh my god the sky is falling' kinda way.

 

[mrjarrell]

So the legal meaning of term "marriage" in Indiana is the same today as it was yesterday?

No, that has changed in the state of Indiana, because it was unConstitutional. Now it conforms with the Constitution, no matter how badly some people don't want it to.

 

[Denny347]

It will be nullified by the Indiana legislature within 3 days and any "marriage" conducted will be voided. Let's not be in such a hurry to destroy one of the many things that has made Indiana one of the best places to live in what used to be America.

You hope.