RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/14/2009

Indiana: Next to go after union of Out Dee/Ana

by Jeremy Hooper

Nunst021We never got around to mentioning it yesterday, mainly because it annoyed the ever-loving piss out of us and we never mustered the strength to get it up. But since today is a new day and the effects of our morning coffee have yet to wear off, we now have the wherewithal (if not the enthusiasm) to tell you that a bipartisan group of lawmakers are introducing a new anti-gay marriage amendment into the Indiana legislature:

An effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages in Indiana is being renewed, this time with new wording that supporters hope will sway critics.

Its supporters said the new version would prohibit civil unions -- which are already not recognized in Indiana -- without affecting domestic partner benefits offered by some employers.
...
The new proposed amendment states: "Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

New proposal to ban gay marriage protects partner benefits [IndyStar]

The good news, however is that most politcally-minded peeps in the know seem to think the measure rivals hell-snowballs in terms of potential success. The bad news: Politically-minded people in the know said the same about California's chances of ever constitutionally banning same-sex marriage, and we all know how well (read: nauseating) that one turned out!

So yea, fingers crossed for this ban's quick demise. Or better yet: Fingers crossed for the eventual demise of the 21st century's amoral, dehumanizing, un-American "smear the queer" match!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Jeremy, you're awesome, but these headlines are getting a little out of hand.

Posted by: Jake | Jan 14, 2009 1:23:38 PM

Eh, deal with it :-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 14, 2009 1:55:53 PM

Yep, my coffee wore off..so it took me 2 tries to get Outdeeana.
Anyway, guys at Bilerico, of course, have a lot to say about this.
Aren't we supposed to wait and see what the 'largest GLBT Organ'
says about it?
Sorry JH, just beginning to get riled at what RSawyer on change.org
says about MJones the Gay Rights blogger....calling him a gentrified,
incremental faux activist.
So then I get to come back here and SPOUT!
PS Keep the weather nice, my daugther will be in New York tomorrow.

Posted by: LOrion | Jan 14, 2009 2:16:42 PM

It's just going to continue to get uglier and uglier . . . but can someone explain why a democrat (Dave Cheatham)would sign on to this bullshit? . . .

and . . .when is he up for election?

Posted by: Jon | Jan 14, 2009 2:41:28 PM

Any unmarried straight couples should be FREAKED and outraged by: "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized". To say that they CAN"T be treated substantially similar to married couples?

But then, any woman or straight person who would vote for 'traditional marriage' is by definition either a hypocrite or stupid.

Posted by: Strepsi | Jan 14, 2009 5:43:42 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails