RECENT  POSTS:  » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate  

« 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