Get facts straight on same-sex issue

THE PREACHERMAN wrote:

You better read GODS WORDS or burn in hell.1st.Corinthians 6:9,10 (NIV)...WE CAN PUT A STOP TO HOMOSEXUALITY OR GOD WILL.ARE LAWMAKERS OF THIS STATE AND COUNTRY HAVE BETTER OUTLAW IT BY A CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT OR THEY WILL FACE GODS LAWS.HIV IS A CURSE OF GOD AND THERE WILL BE MORE TO COME,UP NO ALL HOMOSEXUALITY....

Okay your rants are usually funny (in a short bus sort of way). But since HIV and AIDS are growing faster in "straight" women than any other group, your arguement is null and void. AND try explaining your reasoning to all of the children dying of AIDS.

Homo Sapien Homosexual wrote:

I don't need to be saved by all of you do gooders. Why, in fact, do you care if God will judge me and determine I will go to hell because I'm gay? Get over yourself, mind your own business, and watch out, you may have a gay child. More than 1 in 10 people is gay, you know, so it's not impossible. Homosexuality is not a choice, and the God I know only wants me to love and be loved. Linda, if you wear clothes made out of more than 1 type of fabric, then God will judge you on your day. It must be true, it says so in the Bible. I was raised in a loving home. My parents have been married for 45 years. I was not abused. Aren't those generally the reasons that they say we "turn" to homosexuality?
To end, I have just one thing to say to all you haters...BITE ME.

Where did you get the 1 in 10 number?

Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey faggy, what about bi-sexuals, are they "born that way"?

Joe, thanks for such thoughful and insightful dialogue... Jackass...

Homo Sapien, please excuse Joe's comment, as it is apparent he has not yet come to grips with his own homosexuality. His rants are only disguised please for help.

It never will cease to amaze me those that enjoy attempting to throw their religious argument into the fray as though they should have relevance to others including the ones who do not follow their belief system.
People tend to forget to look at other states that have already passed such legislation and the results, such as the Ohio law which made domestic violence charges only valid for married couples.
I have only one thing to actually hope for concerning this bill, may the discrimination you seek to visit on others be revisited upon your house 1000 fold.

It is astonishing that Chris Stovall, a lawyer who has argued marriage law before more than a dozen state supreme courts, and has helped to draft dozens of state amendments, can point out a logical point and people still refuse to see that SJR 7 is not the same as the Michigan Amendent.

Numerous legal scholars have said the exact same thing Stovall has, but pointing out the obvious does not allow homosexual activists to use the scare tactics they need in order to stop the Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment.

Here is something that will confuse many of you. Highly respected, Notre Dame Law Professor, Dr. Charles Rice has said the same thing as Stovall. Yet for this reason he opposes SJR 7 because it does not do what the Michigan and Ohio amendmetnts do. He thinks our amendment doesn't go far enough.

The Indiana Attorney General has said the same thing as Mr. Stovall, as have many other legal scholars.

Moreover, there are other state amendments that are like Indiana's and guess what, domestic violence is still a crime in those stats. Domestic Partner benefits still exit at their universities.

But facts, are stubborn things, when they get in the way of an agenda.

SJR 7 simply prevents an unelected judge from forcing same-sex marriage and polygamy upon Indiana.

If mothers and fathers, husbands and wives are not important to society, then people can try to make that arguiment, and ask people to vote against SJR 7.

Then, if a majority of Hoosiers reject SJR 7, homosexual activists can take their argument for devaluing traditional marriage into merely another living arrangment, with no societal meaning, and ask the legislature to adopt same-sex, bigamous and polygamous marriages. It will be the first time any state in the nation has done so willingly, but it could happen.

It seems to me that lying about SJR 7 by saying it will do something it won't in order to scare voters who would otherwise vote to preserve marriage, hides behind the real issue of devaluing marriage.

Chris Stovall is correct.

Indeed…

Having read both articles, being an attorney myself, and living in Michigan, I must agree.

Construe is rather obvious and unavoidable legal language. Something a professor cannot “misconstrue”,(to be cheeky) without being intentionally misleading.

The Michigan and Indiana amendments diverge quite dramatically. I would prefer that Indiana have a Michigan like amendment, it being more protective of the institution.

This is a grand example of the true nature of what should be fair minded academics.

DavidM wrote:

So Steve, If I want to have 5 wives, its ok with you? Whats next somebody marry thier dog?

You are the one with a picture of a dog as an avatar.

Sicko.

Micah Clark wrote:

It is astonishing that Chris Stovall, a lawyer who has argued marriage law before more than a dozen state supreme courts, and has helped to draft dozens of state amendments, can point out a logical point and people still refuse to see that SJR 7 is not the same as the Michigan Amendent.
Numerous legal scholars have said the exact same thing Stovall has, but pointing out the obvious does not allow homosexual activists to use the scare tactics they need in order to stop the Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment.
Here is something that will confuse many of you. Highly respected, Notre Dame Law Professor, Dr. Charles Rice has said the same thing as Stovall. Yet for this reason he opposes SJR 7 because it does not do what the Michigan and Ohio amendmetnts do. He thinks our amendment doesn't go far enough.
The Indiana Attorney General has said the same thing as Mr. Stovall, as have many other legal scholars.
Moreover, there are other state amendments that are like Indiana's and guess what, domestic violence is still a crime in those stats. Domestic Partner benefits still exit at their universities.
But facts, are stubborn things, when they get in the way of an agenda.
SJR 7 simply prevents an unelected judge from forcing same-sex marriage and polygamy upon Indiana.
If mothers and fathers, husbands and wives are not important to society, then people can try to make that arguiment, and ask people to vote against SJR 7.
Then, if a majority of Hoosiers reject SJR 7, homosexual activists can take their argument for devaluing traditional marriage into merely another living arrangment, with no societal meaning, and ask the legislature to adopt same-sex, bigamous and polygamous marriages. It will be the first time any state in the nation has done so willingly, but it could happen.
It seems to me that lying about SJR 7 by saying it will do something it won't in order to scare voters who would otherwise vote to preserve marriage, hides behind the real issue of devaluing marriage.
Chris Stovall is correct.

We do agree on one thing - facts are stubborn when they get in the way. How can SJR7 fly in the face of this state's and the US constitution's equal protection clause? Let's see...two committed adults in long term relationships. One arrangement is given preferential treatment by the government and is granted governmental benefits, immunities and protections, under the term marriage. These same government entitlements are not available to another committed couple and never will be if you have your way...because you want to remain superior? Most of the government entitlements have nothing to do with progeny - so that is an overtly weak excuse. Two examples of tax paying citizens in long-term committed couple relationships being treated completely differently by the government. Are you willing to forgo those entitlements? Take those entitlements out of the equation, then you have a right to be so pious.

Regarding the attrocious status of marriage today and breeding out of wedlock - we heterosexuals are only to blame for that...we did it to ourselves. Can't blame that one on gays.

DAD wrote:

Get my fact straight on same sex issue,I did long time ago,I pick-up the BIBLE and it said it was wrong that is that....

You sound like the small town good old boys I grew up with. They used biblical passages to support their views on blacks and slavery. Yup...said right there in the Bible. This is not about the Bible - it is about secular government and the entitlements provided to one group of citizens which are denied to other tax paying citizens.

Micah Clark wrote:

It is astonishing that Chris Stovall, a lawyer who has argued marriage law before more than a dozen state supreme courts, and has helped to draft dozens of state amendments, can point out a logical point and people still refuse to see that SJR 7 is not the same as the Michigan Amendent.
Numerous legal scholars have said the exact same thing Stovall has, but pointing out the obvious does not allow homosexual activists to use the scare tactics they need in order to stop the Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment.
Here is something that will confuse many of you. Highly respected, Notre Dame Law Professor, Dr. Charles Rice has said the same thing as Stovall. Yet for this reason he opposes SJR 7 because it does not do what the Michigan and Ohio amendmetnts do. He thinks our amendment doesn't go far enough.
The Indiana Attorney General has said the same thing as Mr. Stovall, as have many other legal scholars.
Moreover, there are other state amendments that are like Indiana's and guess what, domestic violence is still a crime in those stats. Domestic Partner benefits still exit at their universities.
But facts, are stubborn things, when they get in the way of an agenda.
SJR 7 simply prevents an unelected judge from forcing same-sex marriage and polygamy upon Indiana.
If mothers and fathers, husbands and wives are not important to society, then people can try to make that arguiment, and ask people to vote against SJR 7.
Then, if a majority of Hoosiers reject SJR 7, homosexual activists can take their argument for devaluing traditional marriage into merely another living arrangment, with no societal meaning, and ask the legislature to adopt same-sex, bigamous and polygamous marriages. It will be the first time any state in the nation has done so willingly, but it could happen.
It seems to me that lying about SJR 7 by saying it will do something it won't in order to scare voters who would otherwise vote to preserve marriage, hides behind the real issue of devaluing marriage.
Chris Stovall is correct.

Come on Mica, we have been lied to way too many times by your kind, you know it and we know it.

Linda wrote:

Anyone who supports any kind of homosexual arrrangements will have to answer to God someday. I have faith he will deal justly with them at that time. It isn't our place to judge but really all you have to do is read your bible-it's very clear.

Now Linda, everyone will have to answer to God someday for their actions. I suppose you are going to smile and claim that you were against homosexuals and believe that will get you off the hook for your bigotry? By the way sugar, I have read the Bible, it takes more than reading it, it takes a person who is willing to "understand" it and the times it was written in.

Micah Clark wrote:

If mothers and fathers, husbands and wives are not important to society, then people can try to make that arguiment, and ask people to vote against SJR 7.

What does this have to do with 'facts'? Voting against SJR 7 is in no way devaluing them or saying they are not important. The institution still exists and still will have all the same benefits as before.

Besides, since EVERY law is "construed to require" those who are subject to it to enjoy the "status or the legal incidents" that the law provides, this amendment is making an EXCEPTION to how laws should be handled. The amendment would specifically limit any laws that have the state to give benefits or recognition found in marriage. After all, any such law would REQUIRE state to provide "status or the legal incidents of marriage...upon unmarried couples or groups"

Principle of Respect for Person
If something is rational then it is worthwhile.
Human beings are at least potentially rational.
Therefore human beings are (at least potentially) worthwhile.

People in the LGBT population are rational human beings as well. Why does society not view them as worthwhile? This troubles me.

I live in Michigan and all we heard from politicians & the religious freaks was exactly what Indiana is hearing now- that the amendment is only to "protect marriage" and will never be used to take away current benifits or rights of gay people. And the idiots in Michigan fell for that garbage, as will the idiots of Indiana. You just can't win when people are that stupid. Luckily the "sheeple" will be led calmly to slaughter when the aliens retake this crappy little planet.

DAD wrote:

<quoted text>Anything that got to do with life in any way or GOV.It is about the BIBLE.WHY; the BIBLE is the law and rules,that this world should live by,dont believe me read it and learn something.

Scriptural literalist will be the downfall of society. You are nothing but sheep. Sheep follow aimlessly, never inquiring into the reality of any situation.

Besides, after all wasn’t the bible that taught compassion, love, and acceptance for all others?

I think you need to stop projecting your fear or hatred of diversity onto the image of god.

...and learn to spell and formulate sentences.

Dad,

Here is just one example of why we cannot base our laws on the bible:

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying,“Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God....(Deuteronomy 13:7–11)"

The bible has a lot of great philosophy and morality, and many of our laws are based on morals expressed in the bible. But much of the bible just doesn't work with our current sense of morality. Morality has evolved because God gave us more than a book to guide us. He gave us the ability to reason and empathize with other human beings. And it is empathy that leads many of us to feel that the Indiana State Constitution should not be amended in order to reinforce discrimination against our gay friends.

wtf wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay your rants are usually funny (in a short bus sort of way). But since HIV and AIDS are growing faster in "straight" women than any other group, your arguement is null and void. AND try explaining your reasoning to all of the children dying of AIDS.

Short bus is about right!

Bravo, Mr. Stovall! The real hypocrisy here lies in Ms. Kennedy's lack of candor. Her effort to defeat SJ7 is motivated by her realization that a constitutional amendment would not allow the judiciary to "decide" that Indiana's DOMA is unconstitutional. Her column mentions that Indiana law already prohibits same sex marriage, but fails to add that it would take but one judge to change that.

There are quite a few threads on the same-sex marriage issue on this board, and on every one of them I (and others) have brought up the fact that SJ7 almot certainly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Almost no one yet seems to have addressed my argument. To me, the legal and constitutional issues should be first and foremost, not issues about the Bible and morality.

To supporters of this amendment, how do you think this could possibly pass Equal Protection?

Here is what all the fuss is about. The point of the letter to the editor deals with section (b). I don't know whether Kennedy is correct or not, but I'm concerned about section (a).

Section 38.(a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.