Gay Marriage comes to Indiana?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Update: The House is ordering pizza, which means the day is still young. So check back this evening folks!

Any information on the toppings?  And if so, is there any correlation between various toppings and SSM support?  Would you be able to make any maps?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So what was in the second sentence that was struck?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would have voted to keep the sentence in to poison pill the amendment.

The problem with poison pills is that you might end up swallowing them.  Considering that the change delays the referendum until at least 2016, which means it probably won't be held since the Supreme Court will have ruled by then in favor of same-sex marriage, the change is worth doing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is simply political brinksmanship by the dems and the coerced some goprs from bigger cities to play along. The Senate will tell them to put the sentence back in.

So what?  All the Senate can do is keep the amended version from the 2016 ballot.  I can't think of a single reason anyone who voted for the amended version in the House should change their vote. Any political damage that might have been done by such a vote will have already have been done.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're not particularly bright.

I really hate to bring this up again and again but you force me to; It's highly unlikely that someone with a scholarship to Oxford for a course that is extremely academically selective is "not particularly bright". The evidence is against you on this one.

The problem is, with your posting history, there is no evidence you actually have that scholarship to Oxford you stake so much on.  And if even if you do have it, well every institution is going to make some mistakes along the way.