#marriage amendment

[benandstevesposts]

Ten years after marriage equality became law, America once again stands at a crossroads. As new petitions and cultural divisions emerge, the nation is re-examining what freedom to marry truly means — and who decides its limits.

Marriage Rights at the Crossroads: A Nation in Reflection

[kabimeje]

Yay

Equality under the law MEANS equality under the law. I am SO HAPPY for everyone today and I pray God blesses you all! God IS Love and I can only imagine how the heavens are singing that more of us puny humans are realizing that pure love is to be celebrated and not shamed!!

[afpchrisgraham]

Brief statement from Bob Marshall on Supreme Court stay in marriage case

Brief statement from Bob Marshall on Supreme Court stay in marriage case

Statement from Republican State Del. Bob Marshall on the Supreme Court stay in the Virginia marriage equality case.

The Supreme Court’s issuance of a stay today in the Virginia Marriage case highlights the arrogance of the two Fourth Circuit judges​ in denying the stay.

The refusal of the Supreme Court to be pressured by the Fourth Circuitjudges into a decision that would make it difficult for…

View On WordPress

[mikaelpro]

Audio of the VA Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals homosexual marriage appeal

Audio of the VA Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals homosexual marriage appeal

You can listen to the audio of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Virginia appeal challenging a lower courts ruling. A Virginia marriage amendment that defined marriage between a man and woman was found to be unconstitutional earlier this year. The ruling was appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

You can listen to an audio of the appeal here.

View On WordPress

[indypolitics]

National Group Says it May Sue to Get Marriage Amendment on the Ballot

While many marriage amendment supporters have conceded defeat that the  measure will not be on the ballot this November, a national pro-family organization says Indiana lawmakers promised to put HJR-3 on the ballot and they may go to court to make them keep their word.

Christopher Plante of the National Organization for Marriage tells Indy Politics that lawmakers promised Hoosiers would get to vote on the amendment and that should happen this year.

The House and Senate passed an amended version of HJR-3 which excluded the second sentence which would ban civil unions.  However, Plante says because the first sentence was kept intact there is precedent for it to go before the voters.

However, House lawmakers amended the first sentence.  It originally read...

SECTION 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana, which was agreed to by the One Hundred Seventeenth General Assembly and referred to this General Assembly for reconsideration and agreement, is agreed to by this the One Hundred  Eighteenth General Assembly of the State of Indiana.

.It now reads...

SECTION 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of theState of Indiana is proposed and agreed to by this, the One HundredEighteenth General Assembly of the State of Indiana, and is referred tothe next General Assembly for reconsideration and agreement.

Language pertaining to marriage being between one man and one woman stayed the same.  Under Indiana law, a constitutional amendment must be passed in its exact form in two consecutive sessions of the Indiana General Assembly before it can go before the voters.

Plante admits his group has an uphill battle, but they plan to review all their options.  He also says they will hold lawmakers accountable in the upcoming elections. 

You can hear Plante’s comments below.  They run approximately 10 minutes.

Leon-Tailored Audio: Christopher Plante, National Organization for Marriage

[indypolitics]

Social Conservatives Fall Short

by Abdul-Hakim Shabazz

Earlier this year the folks who supported HJR-3, the marriage amendment, were livid at the fact that House lawmakers were looking at eliminating the second sentence.   They were so upset that the in several e-mails and public statements they threatened to primary any Republican who voted to alter the amendment.

On January 27, 23 House Republicans voted to remove the second sentence from HJR-3 and another 11 voted against it altogether on the final vote.  Why does that matter?   Well, the primary filing deadline was last Friday.  The rest requires a little bit of math.

There are 82 House Districts with a Republican running in the May primary, out of those 82 only 14 are contested.   Out of the 14 contested races, five are to fill an open seat, so that takes us down to nine.  And out of those nine where incumbents have a challenger only three of them voted to remove the second sentence from HJR-3, Jerry Torr of Carmel, Rebecca Kubacki (Kosciusko and Elkhart Counties) and Kathy Heuer (Allen and Whitley Counties).

Now you have to look at when the challengers filed;  Kubacki’s opponent filed on January 21,  Torr’s opponent filed a primary challenge on February 3,  and Heuer’s opponents filed on February 6 and 7, virtually at the last minute.  

Ok Abdul, where this is going?  Give me a second.

It’s no big secret that Advance America and the Indiana Family Institute actively recruited and encouraged their members to file in primaries against House Republicans who wouldn't vote for HJR 3.  I think I have a couple of e-mails to that effect.   And after all that trouble, at best you could argue they only found three people to run and two of them are running against each other.  

Even organized labor found six “Lunch Pail” Republicans to run in 2012 because of right to work.  I would label these guys paper tigers, but that would be an insult to paper tigers.

And to add more insult to injury, two supporters of HJR-3 actually have primary challengers, author Eric Turner and Elections Committee Chairman Milo Smith. However, in all fairness to Turner, his opponent has told the media HJR-3 wasn’t the reason he was challenging him.

So after all the threats, posturing, weeping and gnashing of teeth, the best HJR-3 supporters could come up with is three primary opponents against 23 Republican lawmakers, two of which are running against each other.

Maybe it’s time to just let this one go and move on to other issues that actually matter.

Abdul-Hakim is the editor and publisher of IndyPolitics.Org.

Photo: WIBC-FM

[indypolitics]

Minnesota and the Marriage Amendment

If you want an idea of what could happen if the marriage amendment gets on the ballot in Indiana this November, you may want to head north to Minnesota.

The North Star State took up the amendment in 2012.   It was defeated 52-47 and cost Republicans control of the State Senate.

We spoke with Jack Tomczak of News Talk AM 1160 in the Twin Cities on WIBC-FM's "Abdul at-Large" program.  He has observed the issue since 2000.

You can hear his comments below, they run approximately 15 minutes.

Leon-Tailored Audio: KTLK Radio Hose Jack Tomczak on Minnesotans Rejected of Marriage Amendment

The Indiana Senate Rules Committee will hear testimony on HJR-3 Monday afternoon.

[indypolitics]

Are HJR-3's Supporters Getting Ready for a Mercy Killing?

Why are supporters of HJR-3, the marriage amendment, preparing to kill their own bill if necessary?

Find out in the next edition of  "The Cheat Sheet".  If you're not a subscriber fix that click below.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY!!!