Gay Marriage comes to Indiana?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

[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.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

Yayayayayay

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Hopefully by 2016 the issue will have already been decided.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Hear ye, hear ye: the Indiana Senate shall vote on the amended ban on Thursday.


That is all.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

[Holmes]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

Really? Your reputation is on the line. Wait, everything you say is not reputable at all.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"traditional marriage" meaning a woman becoming a man's property? yeah, you'd love that, wouldn't you?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"Traditional" doesn't mean good, JCL. Should we go back to the traditional income tax rates of 1932-1981 (take your pick of year)? I don't think so, and I doubt you do either.

I opposed gay marriage for a long time too, but when it came down to it, my strongest argument against it was basically "it's a gut thing." That's fine and dandy, but laws should not be based on gut feelings. They should not be based on favouring one religious tradition over the other. They should not be based on assumptions of inherent inequality.

So with those things in mind, JCL, what is your argument against marriage equality? Are you going to tell me the United States is a Christian nation? Are you going to tell me gay people are inherently unequal? Are you going to tell me it's a perversion that will corrupt society? I'm curious. I mean, for your own sake I kind of hope you go with the gut feeling thing.

[Hifly]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"traditional marriage" meaning a woman becoming a man's property? yeah, you'd love that, wouldn't you?

The definition of marriage does not encompass "a woman becoming a man's property".

[Franzl]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"traditional marriage" meaning a woman becoming a man's property? yeah, you'd love that, wouldn't you?

The definition of marriage does not encompass "a woman becoming a man's property".

Sure it can, if you define marriage that way.

[Hifly]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"traditional marriage" meaning a woman becoming a man's property? yeah, you'd love that, wouldn't you?

The definition of marriage does not encompass "a woman becoming a man's property".

Sure it can, if you define marriage that way.

No; It does not and never has formed a part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. It may have formed part of the rights awarded as a result of a marriage under law but it has not formed part of the definition of marriage.

[SteveRogers]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"traditional marriage" meaning a woman becoming a man's property? yeah, you'd love that, wouldn't you?

The definition of marriage does not encompass "a woman becoming a man's property".

Sure it can, if you define marriage that way.

No; It does not and never has formed a part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. It may have formed part of the rights awarded as a result of a marriage under law but it has not formed part of the definition of marriage.

So out of curiosity, what do you think the "definition" of marriage is precisely?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"traditional marriage" meaning a woman becoming a man's property? yeah, you'd love that, wouldn't you?

The definition of marriage does not encompass "a woman becoming a man's property".

the definition of marriage also isn't restricted to one man and one woman, champ. good try, though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The amended HJR3 has passed the House


Either way, it will not be on the 2014 ballot

What do you expect from a political body that once decided that pi had multiple values, including 3.2?

[afleitch]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"traditional marriage" meaning a woman becoming a man's property? yeah, you'd love that, wouldn't you?

The definition of marriage does not encompass "a woman becoming a man's property".

Sure it can, if you define marriage that way.

No; It does not and never has formed a part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. It may have formed part of the rights awarded as a result of a marriage under law but it has not formed part of the definition of marriage.

You're not particularly bright.

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

[Hifly]

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.

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

This is entirely true; men had absolute ownership of women as handed down by law through a marriage. That was a right, as I emphasised above. That didn't form part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. While it may not have been defined explicitly under the England and Wales 1753 Marriage Act in England and Wales, by "persons", it is unambiguous that it refers to one man and one woman. Otherwise, how would the very principle of erunt animae duae in carne una if two persons of the same gender were wed? Which person would have total ownership over the other? Also, do you have evidence of any same-sex marriages being carried out in 18th Century England?

the definition of marriage also isn't restricted to one man and one woman, champ. good try, though.

Actually it is, and always has been, in the state of Indiana.

[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.

[RedSLC]

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.

Indeed. Attending a prestigious university is most certainly not a guarantee of intelligence, if a certain Yale graduate is any indication.

And even if it was, it still wouldn't entitle you to basically say "I'm smart, so therefore, I'm right, and you're wrong", as you have been doing.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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.

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

This is entirely true; men had absolute ownership of women as handed down by law through a marriage. That was a right, as I emphasised above. That didn't form part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. While it may not have been defined explicitly under the England and Wales 1753 Marriage Act in England and Wales, by "persons", it is unambiguous that it refers to one man and one woman. Otherwise, how would the very principle of erunt animae duae in carne una if two persons of the same gender were wed? Which person would have total ownership over the other? Also, do you have evidence of any same-sex marriages being carried out in 18th Century England?

Is the "definition" of marriage not only what the law says it is?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

This is entirely true; men had absolute ownership of women as handed down by law through a marriage. That was a right, as I emphasised above. That didn't form part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage.

Last I checked, rights are what establish and define the institution of marriage in the first place.  Otherwise, there would be no point in the state recognizing them.  Is this a real attempt at an argument, or are you just playing a semantics game because you have no substantive logic to support your position other than "muh feels?"

[afleitch]

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.

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

This is entirely true; men had absolute ownership of women as handed down by law through a marriage. That was a right, as I emphasised above. That didn't form part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. While it may not have been defined explicitly under the England and Wales 1753 Marriage Act in England and Wales, by "persons", it is unambiguous that it refers to one man and one woman. Otherwise, how would the very principle of erunt animae duae in carne una if two persons of the same gender were wed? Which person would have total ownership over the other? Also, do you have evidence of any same-sex marriages being carried out in 18th Century England?

the definition of marriage also isn't restricted to one man and one woman, champ. good try, though.

Actually it is, and always has been, in the state of Indiana.

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

[SteveRogers]

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.

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

This is entirely true; men had absolute ownership of women as handed down by law through a marriage. That was a right, as I emphasised above. That didn't form part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. While it may not have been defined explicitly under the England and Wales 1753 Marriage Act in England and Wales, by "persons", it is unambiguous that it refers to one man and one woman. Otherwise, how would the very principle of erunt animae duae in carne una if two persons of the same gender were wed? Which person would have total ownership over the other? Also, do you have evidence of any same-sex marriages being carried out in 18th Century England?

the definition of marriage also isn't restricted to one man and one woman, champ. good try, though.

Actually it is, and always has been, in the state of Indiana.

I still haven't seen you articulate what this unchanging "factual, literary and historical" definition of marriage is. I get that you think "between a man and a woman" is an essential component of it, but that isn't a definition. Marriage to you is what exactly between a man and a woman? If you're so sure of the definition of marriage, tell us what it is. Use as few or as many words as you need. What do you think the definition of marriage is?

And absolutely no one cares if you go to Oxford.

[Gass3268]

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.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

Looks like it will pass amended as the Senate is not putting the sentence back in. Have fun waiting until 2016.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/13/hjr-3-last-minute-maneuver-could-spare-2nd-sentence-/5455299/