America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by frankj1. 23 replies replies.
No alternative hankey panky in Indiana?
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
ZRX1200 Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Jul 23 2013, 7:58 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
The Backlash Begins: Indiana Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Felony Punishable by Prison

Beginning July 2014,same-sex couples seeking marriage in the state can face serious time.

Photo Credit: jorg rose-oberreich/Shutterstock.com

On July 1 of next year, same-sex couples applying for a marriage license in Indiana will have committed a felony punishable by 18 months in prison an a $10,000 fine. The new crime stems from the revival of a1997 law forbidding false information on a marriage license as a Class D felony. It will also make it a Class B misdemeanor -- punishable by up to 180 days in a jail and a maximum fine of $1,000 -- for clergy, judges, and others to perform a same-sex marriage.

The New Civil Rights Movement explains how the new rule works:

Because Indiana marriage license forms have a space for “male applicant” and “female applicant”, any same-sex couple filling out the form would automatically violate the law. The harsh penalties Indiana lawmakers have approved make it difficult for protest movements like the Campaign for Southern Equality’s “ We Do” Campaign, which encourages same-sex couples to apply for marriage licenses as a protest in states that prohibit same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Indiana, but legislators are contemplating adding a ban in an amendment the state's Constitution. The vote will be held in the January-March 2014 legislative session.
Abrignac Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Jul 23 2013, 8:05 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
Kinda thinking this is much adieu about nothing. Seems that will run afoul of the equal protection clause. Of course I'm no lawyer. Jamie please pass the popcorn....
fiddler898 Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Jul 23 2013, 8:11 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
Ever on the cutting edge of the previous century...
ZRX1200 Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Jul 23 2013, 8:54 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Woah fiddler......


I watched Futurama and Back to The Future and there wasn't excessive increases in homosexuals .
Brewha Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Jul 23 2013, 9:13 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Last time I flew into Indiana the pilot reminded us to set our watch back two hundred years . . .

Just sayin'
ZRX1200 Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Jul 23 2013, 9:20 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
FLYOVER OUTRAGE!!!!
dpnewell Offline
#7 Posted: Tue, Jul 23 2013, 9:50 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha wrote:
Last time I flew into Indiana the pilot reminded us to set our watch back two hundred years . . .

Just sayin'


Though I personally think this bill is way over the top, it's so much better to live in a modern, enlightened city, like Detroit. Just say'n.
TMCTLT Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 4:25 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Brewha wrote:
Last time I flew into Indiana the pilot reminded us to set our watch back two hundred years . . .

Just sayin'



I'd rather live 200 yrs behind the times than embrace the future if this is what it's all about....just sayin

Man I love the Mid-West Beer
borndead1 Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 6:44 AM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
TMCTLT wrote:
I'd rather live 200 yrs behind the times than embrace the future if this is what it's all about....just sayin

Man I love the Mid-West Beer


So a future where people mind their own business and government doesn't regulate people's personal private relationships scares you?

Wow.
TMCTLT Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 6:51 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
borndead1 wrote:
So a future where people mind their own business and government doesn't regulate people's personal private relationships scares you?

Wow.



No.... a world where the minorities beliefs now outstrip the majorities does though...thanks for playing tho!!!

Look, these folks already enjoyed the freedom to live their lives as they see fit....but they will NOT be happy until laws are in place that cover " just them "

I'm sorry but when OUR Constitution upholds an individuals right over the general feeling and rights of the masses....something HAS gone seriously wrong. IMVHO

What's next Born.....peoples rights to marry animals of their choice??? I'm sorry but I do NOT believe this is part of the Natural Order of things
borndead1 Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 7:07 AM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
TMCTLT wrote:
No.... a world where the minorities beliefs now outstrip the majorities does though...thanks for playing tho!!! -- I'm not talking about beliefs. I'm talking about equality UNDER THE LAW. The only way we can ever have equality under the law is to have anonymity and autonomy under the law. The law should not recognize gay/straight, black/white, male/female, etc. And the will of the majority cannot always be trusted. After all, a majority of people re-elected Obama.


Look, these folks already enjoyed the freedom to live their lives as they see fit....but they will NOT be happy until laws are in place that cover " just them "

I'm sorry but when OUR Constitution upholds an individuals right over the general feeling and rights of the masses....something HAS gone seriously wrong. IMVHO -- There can be no liberty without individual liberty. As long as you do not injure me physically or damage my property, it's none of my business what you do.

What's next Born.....peoples rights to marry animals of their choice??? I'm sorry but I do NOT believe this is part of the Natural Order of things -- This is the most ridiculous, far-fetched, uber reactionary, ignorant argument I've ever heard. Animals are not people and cannot give consent. Get real.



Let me ask you a question. Do we really want a government that is SO powerful that it can restrict, regulate, and define relationships between consenting adults? Why do you want government to stay out of your health care, your wallet, and your gun cabinet but you want government to dictate the terms of people's personal PRIVATE relationships?

It's none of my business if 2 homos wanna get married. And it's none of YOUR business. And it's sure as hell none of the government's business.
TMCTLT Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 7:21 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
borndead1 wrote:
Let me ask you a question. Do we really want a government that is SO powerful that it can restrict, regulate, and define relationships between consenting adults? Why do you want government to stay out of your health care, your wallet, and your gun cabinet but you want government to dictate the terms of people's personal PRIVATE relationships?

It's none of my business if 2 homos wanna get married. And it's none of YOUR business. And it's sure as hell none of the government's business.



That's the whole problem...it's NOT equality. It's an avenue in which to become a "protected class" kinda like minorities, used freely as an excuse to keep employers from firing an individual based on performance (or lack thereof) and I think you know full well what I'm talking about. And YES this WILL be used that way too (endless litigation brought about " ( they let me go because I'm gay etc. etc. I don't want the government involved in much, but they already ARE in my healthcare (therefore my wallet and you know damn well they will NOT stop trying to get in my "gun cabinet" until they're successful.



This is the most ridiculous, far-fetched, uber reactionary, ignorant argument I've ever heard. Animals are not people and cannot give consent. Get real.


Oh and to your take on animal / human relationships....does YOUR logic also apply to an unborn child?????
They cannot speak for themselves either...YOU GET REAL
borndead1 Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 3:49 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
TMCTLT wrote:
That's the whole problem...it's NOT equality. It's an avenue in which to become a "protected class" kinda like minorities, used freely as an excuse to keep employers from firing an individual based on performance (or lack thereof) and I think you know full well what I'm talking about. And YES this WILL be used that way too (endless litigation brought about " ( they let me go because I'm gay etc. etc. I don't want the government involved in much, but they already ARE in my healthcare (therefore my wallet and you know damn well they will NOT stop trying to get in my "gun cabinet" until they're successful.



This is the most ridiculous, far-fetched, uber reactionary, ignorant argument I've ever heard. Animals are not people and cannot give consent. Get real.


Oh and to your take on animal / human relationships....does YOUR logic also apply to an unborn child?????
They cannot speak for themselves either...YOU GET REAL



We are talking about consenting ADULTS. Not animals and not children. You automatically assume I am pro-abortion simply because I don't want government to dictate the terms of people's personal private relationships? That speaks volumes about your political views and opinions.
borndead1 Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 4:14 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
P.S. I think a privately owned company should be able to fire anyone for anything at any time.
z6joker9 Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 4:31 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2011
Posts: 5,902
Com'on now, you know it's only right and left. You pick and side and take on all their beliefs.
teedubbya Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 4:38 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
z6joker9 wrote:
Com'on now, you know it's only right and left. You pick and side and take on all their beliefs.


^ fencepost
tailgater Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 6:13 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
borndead1 wrote:
So a future where people mind their own business and government doesn't regulate people's personal private relationships scares you?

Wow.


Yes.
Because it is obvious that our government today, who is now ready to embrace alternative lifestyles, has also abandoned their desire to invade our privacy...
tailgater Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 6:16 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Regarding the OP.

I find it ironic that men would be put in prison as a punishment for having anal sex.
TMCTLT Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 6:18 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
borndead1 wrote:
We are talking about consenting ADULTS. Not animals and not children. You automatically assume I am pro-abortion simply because I don't want government to dictate the terms of people's personal private relationships? That speaks volumes about your political views and opinions.




Ahh herein lies the problem, it's NOT consenting adults...it's the woman ALONE in most cases who gets to make this decision. Last I checked she can't get pregnant on her own. Please don't mis-understand me as I DO NOT want government in my business any more than necessary either.
borndead1 Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 6:23 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
TMCTLT wrote:
Ahh herein lies the problem, it's NOT consenting adults...it's the woman ALONE in most cases who gets to make this decision. Last I checked she can't get pregnant on her own. Please don't mis-understand me as I DO NOT want government in my business any more than necessary either.



With my 'consenting adults' comment, I was trying to stay on the subject of homomarriage. Abortion is a totally different discussion, and the 2 really aren't related that much aside from the fact that they are both "hot button" issues.
rfenst Offline
#21 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 8:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,461
borndead1 wrote:
With my 'consenting adults' comment, I was trying to stay on the subject of homomarriage. Abortion is a totally different discussion, and the 2 really aren't related that much aside from the fact that they are both "hot button" issues.


Go figure he used a wild, shot-gun approach full of unproven fact and "chicken little", "slippery slope" reasoning. Don't waste your time banging your head against the wall.
borndead1 Offline
#22 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 9:02 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
rfenst wrote:
Go figure he used a wild, shot-gun approach full of unproven fact and "chicken little", "slippery slope" reasoning. Don't waste your time banging your head against the wall.



It's not a waste of time. We only see through our own eyes until the day we decide to look at things from others' point of view. I'm sure everyone reading this would agree that his/her relationship with his/her spouse is nobody else's business. Likewise, another person's relationship with his/her significant other is nobody's business but theirs. It's really a simple concept.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson
frankj1 Offline
#23 Posted: Wed, Jul 24 2013, 9:19 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,274
borndead1 wrote:
It's not a waste of time. We only see through our own eyes until the day we decide to look at things from others' point of view. I'm sure everyone reading this would agree that his/her relationship with his/her spouse is nobody else's business. Likewise, another person's relationship with his/her significant other is nobody's business but theirs. It's really a simple concept.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson

nice.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top