The Indiana State Senate passed the gay marriage amendment by the disgustingly wide margin of 40-10. Since the House has already passed the same bill, the first of three steps required to add discrimination to the Indiana Constitution is now complete.
Changing the constitution in Indiana requires two consecutive, separately elected legislatures to pass the bill. If that occurs, the amendment must then be passed by the voters. Should that happen, the amendment then becomes part of our state's defining document. I talk more about this in my first blog on this issue, Gay Marriage in Indiana....Constitutional Discrimination Coming Soon!
There is already a state law banning gay marriage in Indiana. Adding a constitutional amendment is unnecessary and redundant. (Those two words describe so much of what government does...unnecessary and redundant.) Proponents of the amendment love to say that the amendment is necessary to prevent activist judges from changing the law as it currently is. The truth, though, is that attitude towards gay marriage is changing at an exponential rate. Lawmakers know that within a very short number of years there will to be plenty of support to pass legislation making gay marriage legal and recognized in Indiana. If they can pass an amendment now, then public approval of gay marriage will mean it will still take several years before it can be legal.
If this amendment passes another legislature and the voters, then our only hope to eliminate this discrimination will be...*gulp*...the federal government. That's right, the feds. If this amendment becomes a reality then the only way it could ever get removed from our constitution in a short period of time is if the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional on the federal level. That process could take even longer than the process of re-changing our amendment.
This is what our legislators are banking on. They are begging for this to get passed now so that it will take years and years for it to ever get changed again. They know that public opinion will soon demand recognition of gay marriage, so they take steps now to smack down that public opinion. And that's what they consider a victory.
The bright side to all this is that there are still two more steps that must be taken to change the constitution. After the 2012 elections, another State House and State Senate must pass the amendment, and then the voters must give it the green light. We have time to make our opinions known, but we must be loud and we must start now. Start talking to people and start calling and emailing legislators today to prevent an embarrassing horror from happening tomorrow.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?
The folks at reason.tv want to know what happened to the anti-war movement. Especially relevant now that Obama's dropping bombs of his own.
I love the stat that, despite being nearly identical, Obama's foreign policy has a 78% approval rating where W's had a 22%. As the video says, war is bipartisan. With things going the way they are in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will probably see these Republican wars that turned into Democrat wars last plenty long enough to turn into Republican wars again.
I love the stat that, despite being nearly identical, Obama's foreign policy has a 78% approval rating where W's had a 22%. As the video says, war is bipartisan. With things going the way they are in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will probably see these Republican wars that turned into Democrat wars last plenty long enough to turn into Republican wars again.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Gay Marriage in Indiana....Constitutional Discrimination Coming Soon!
Get ready, gay Hoosiers! It's already illegal in Indiana for you to get married. But that's just not enough for the religious right. They want a constitutional amendment that says marriage is between one man and one woman.
Why do they want a constitutional amendment? Because it's so much harder to change. See, if they just run with the current law on the books, then gay marriage rights can be provided by any upcoming legislature. Amending the state constitution, though, means it would take years and years to ever allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals in Indiana.
That's because changing the constitution in Indiana isn't easy (nor should it be.) To change the constitution in Indiana, the amendment must pass through two separately elected legislatures and then also pass a vote by the citizens. The amendment currently being discussed would have to be approved by the current legislature, then re-approved by the legislature in 2013 or 2014, then approved by voters in 2014.
So what happens if this amendment gets passed (you're kidding yourself if you don't think this is on the path to get passed.) Immediately, nothing will change for the gay community; they can't marry now and they won't be able to marry then. The change is in the number of hurdles they'll have to jump to finally get the same rights as everyone else. You see, today gay marriage could be allowed at any time. If this amendment gets through, though, gays wouldn't be able to gain marriage rights in Indiana until 2018...at the EARLIEST. And to get them by 2018, the legislative stars would have to align in a very specific way.
Why are they even trying to pass this amendment? To protect marriage, so they say. What supporters of the amendment fail to discuss, though, is that homosexual marriage is not the problem with marriage today. Divorce rates are through the roof, number of people married multiple times is through the roof, custody battles are increasing in both frequency and ferocity. The problem with marriage today has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals or with gay marriage. Today's problems with marriage have only to do with marriage between one man and one woman. The fight to "save marriage" should be focused there.
(Because so little data is currently available it's not worth showing statistics, but early information from the states that allow gay marriage indicate incredibly low divorce rates among gays.)
The government should stay out of the business of who can or cannot get married. The government should view marriage the same as they do a contract; government should recognize the contract and help to settle disputes over it. If homosexuals wish to marry, then they should be allowed to marry.
Government should stay out of the religious side of marriage, too, though. When gay marriage is legalized (an inevitability, even if far off) then no requirement to conduct gay marriages should be made of churches. If a church does not wish to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, then there should be no legal requirement for them to do so.
Why do they want a constitutional amendment? Because it's so much harder to change. See, if they just run with the current law on the books, then gay marriage rights can be provided by any upcoming legislature. Amending the state constitution, though, means it would take years and years to ever allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals in Indiana.
That's because changing the constitution in Indiana isn't easy (nor should it be.) To change the constitution in Indiana, the amendment must pass through two separately elected legislatures and then also pass a vote by the citizens. The amendment currently being discussed would have to be approved by the current legislature, then re-approved by the legislature in 2013 or 2014, then approved by voters in 2014.
So what happens if this amendment gets passed (you're kidding yourself if you don't think this is on the path to get passed.) Immediately, nothing will change for the gay community; they can't marry now and they won't be able to marry then. The change is in the number of hurdles they'll have to jump to finally get the same rights as everyone else. You see, today gay marriage could be allowed at any time. If this amendment gets through, though, gays wouldn't be able to gain marriage rights in Indiana until 2018...at the EARLIEST. And to get them by 2018, the legislative stars would have to align in a very specific way.
Why are they even trying to pass this amendment? To protect marriage, so they say. What supporters of the amendment fail to discuss, though, is that homosexual marriage is not the problem with marriage today. Divorce rates are through the roof, number of people married multiple times is through the roof, custody battles are increasing in both frequency and ferocity. The problem with marriage today has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals or with gay marriage. Today's problems with marriage have only to do with marriage between one man and one woman. The fight to "save marriage" should be focused there.
(Because so little data is currently available it's not worth showing statistics, but early information from the states that allow gay marriage indicate incredibly low divorce rates among gays.)
The government should stay out of the business of who can or cannot get married. The government should view marriage the same as they do a contract; government should recognize the contract and help to settle disputes over it. If homosexuals wish to marry, then they should be allowed to marry.
Government should stay out of the religious side of marriage, too, though. When gay marriage is legalized (an inevitability, even if far off) then no requirement to conduct gay marriages should be made of churches. If a church does not wish to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, then there should be no legal requirement for them to do so.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Government & the NFL 2011 Lockout Labor Mess
The folks at reason.tv always put out some really good videos. They are always smart and well-produced, and often funny.
Recently, they tackled (get it?) the current problems with the NFL and its players. It is a short video that does a great job of showing why the government should stay out of the affairs of private business.
Recently, they tackled (get it?) the current problems with the NFL and its players. It is a short video that does a great job of showing why the government should stay out of the affairs of private business.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Smoking Bans in Bars Simply Not Necessary
I'm having lunch at Manly's Irish Mutt. It's a little pub on the east side of Indianapolis. Nice place. Traditional bar/pub menu, but with a little bit of an Irish twist. Over 21 only. No smoking allowed.
No smoking because they want to be no smoking. Not no smoking because a law mandated it.
Great crowd at lunch. I got here about 1:00 and the bar rail was packed and several tables sat, as well.
A lot of people will tell you that smoking bans for bars are necessary in part because bars can't realistically go smoke free and keep their business if the bar next door allows its patrons to light up. Bull.
This is my second visit to Manly's. It's been packed both times. Evidence, I submit, that there is sufficient demand to have both smoking and non-smoking adult establishments.
Let the business choose their environment, don't mandate it with laws that only strip our liberties.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Fall of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Great news for the homosexual community in their battle for civil rights. After a surprisingly little amount of debate (relative to what we could have expected only a half-dozen years ago), President Obama today signed into law the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Most people think that DADT was horrible, and it was. But let's not forget that DADT, when first put into effect, was a step in the right direction. Previous to DADT, a person was asked if they were homosexual while signing up for the military. If you said yes, you got axed right there. DADT stopped the military from asking the question, so you then only got axed if you announced your homosexuality or were otherwise outed. Literally, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The only problem I have with the repeal of DADT is not with the repeal itself, but with the way it was repealed. The President campaigned on his intention to repeal DADT. For his first two years in office, he and others (mostly Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans) had more than enough votes to eliminate DADT immediately. Instead of acting immediately on the issue, like someone would if they were truly passionate about it, they put it off. For more than 18 moths after Obama'a inauguration the repeal of DADT was hardly mentioned by those with the power to repeal it.
Instead, Obama and his cronies put DADT on the back burner, and brought it to the forefront only as we entered the midterm election season. The repeal of DADT was used as a way of exploiting the homosexual community for political gain in an election year. A wonderful civil rights accomplishment was twisted into something disgusting. And Obama slamming his fist on the bill after signing it and proudly exclaiming, "It is done!" What a joke. He had no passion for this issue just a handful of months ago.
My complaints about how DADT came to an end, though, are heavily outweighed by the sheer importance of the fact that it finally did come to an end. This is a day that the advocates for not only homosexual rights, but true civil rights in general, will hail as one of the most important steps of our time. I hope that today can be used as a stepping stone towards our one day accepting our homosexual friends as equals in all areas of our society and in all areas of our lives.
Most people think that DADT was horrible, and it was. But let's not forget that DADT, when first put into effect, was a step in the right direction. Previous to DADT, a person was asked if they were homosexual while signing up for the military. If you said yes, you got axed right there. DADT stopped the military from asking the question, so you then only got axed if you announced your homosexuality or were otherwise outed. Literally, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The only problem I have with the repeal of DADT is not with the repeal itself, but with the way it was repealed. The President campaigned on his intention to repeal DADT. For his first two years in office, he and others (mostly Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans) had more than enough votes to eliminate DADT immediately. Instead of acting immediately on the issue, like someone would if they were truly passionate about it, they put it off. For more than 18 moths after Obama'a inauguration the repeal of DADT was hardly mentioned by those with the power to repeal it.
Instead, Obama and his cronies put DADT on the back burner, and brought it to the forefront only as we entered the midterm election season. The repeal of DADT was used as a way of exploiting the homosexual community for political gain in an election year. A wonderful civil rights accomplishment was twisted into something disgusting. And Obama slamming his fist on the bill after signing it and proudly exclaiming, "It is done!" What a joke. He had no passion for this issue just a handful of months ago.
My complaints about how DADT came to an end, though, are heavily outweighed by the sheer importance of the fact that it finally did come to an end. This is a day that the advocates for not only homosexual rights, but true civil rights in general, will hail as one of the most important steps of our time. I hope that today can be used as a stepping stone towards our one day accepting our homosexual friends as equals in all areas of our society and in all areas of our lives.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Term Limits? Maybe not as good an idea as it sounds...
Term Limits may sound great to you. Have you considered, though, that they essentially create Senators & Congresspeople that are lame ducks for years at a time? If we were to elect any legislator into the last term they were constitutionally eligible for, they would have the same lame duck lack of responsibilty to constituents as those voted out of office have for a couple months at a time today.
Can you imagine the attitude our legislators would have about which laws to pass if they had no one to answer to for two or six years? A SIX-YEAR lame duck Senator? I cannot fathom the number of laws that would be passed favoring our Senators and Congresspeople instead of favoring We, The People.
Yes, our efforts to decrease political nonchalance could actually increase political corruptness. Surely that's not what anyone wants. There's a good article here from the great people at United Liberty that discusses a couple reasons why we should not want term limits. It also address some alternatives to term limits that would help put the power of Congressional decision-making back into the hands of the people. Check it out, and leave a comment with your thoughts.
Can you imagine the attitude our legislators would have about which laws to pass if they had no one to answer to for two or six years? A SIX-YEAR lame duck Senator? I cannot fathom the number of laws that would be passed favoring our Senators and Congresspeople instead of favoring We, The People.
Yes, our efforts to decrease political nonchalance could actually increase political corruptness. Surely that's not what anyone wants. There's a good article here from the great people at United Liberty that discusses a couple reasons why we should not want term limits. It also address some alternatives to term limits that would help put the power of Congressional decision-making back into the hands of the people. Check it out, and leave a comment with your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)