Indiana state GOP keeps marriage definition in platform

[MisterChester]

Indiana GOP keeps marriage language in platform - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

The Indiana state GOP has decided to keep the definition of marriage as one woman and one man in the party platform. Why they think it's important enough to keep, I don't know. There are many more important things to be concerned about, yet they keep this in an effort to legislate morality. The party has proven once again that they are only for small government when it benefits them.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I'm fine if people want to marry their toasters and blenders and televisions. As it stands, most people are married to their televisions already. But neither do I want taxpayer money spent to formally recognize those marriages - or any marriage at all - or to cut tax breaks for anyone based on marital status.

 

[MisterChester]

I'm fine if people want to marry their toasters and blenders and televisions. As it stands, most people are married to their televisions already. But neither do I want taxpayer money spent to formally recognize those marriages - or any marriage at all - or to cut tax breaks for anyone based on marital status.

A better argument for them is to let churches choose whoever they want to marry without government getting involved. If they don't want to marry gays or toasters that's fine with me. No more tax dollars spent to recognize anything or any breaks to people simply because they are married.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I would really love for each denomination of faith to determine what "marriage" is for them and their congregation, let the government decide what a civil union is and have no special treatment for either.

But that's just me...

Regards,

Doug

 

[HeadlessRoland]

A better argument for them is to let churches choose whoever they want to marry without government getting involved. If they don't want to marry gays or toasters that's fine with me. No more tax dollars spent to recognize anything or any breaks to people simply because they are married.

That's a rephrase of what I just said, but sure.

 

[Indy-Mike]

I would really love for each denomination of faith to determine what "marriage" is for them and their congregation, let the government decide what a civil union is and have no special treatment for either.

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

 

[wtfd661]

I am glad they did.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Bravo-4-2]

Good. I'm glad they did. I wish the national GOP were as true to our core values as we have consistently been here in Indiana.

 

[mrjarrell]

To All,

I would really love for each denomination of faith to determine what "marriage" is for them and their congregation, let the government decide what a civil union is and have no special treatment for either.

But that's just me...

Regards,

Doug

That's all well and good and agreeable, Doug, but it's not what the gop wants. They want government to oversee civil marriage and deny it's Rights and privileges to select citizens. Until the day comes that we can get the .gov out of the marriage equation (not anytime in our lifetimes) it is our responsibility to see to it that everyone is treated equally before the law and under the Constitution. We can work towards getting government out of it, but we have other responsibilities in the meantime. And that means opposing some folks. Judges in almost 20 states now have spoken on the Constitutionality of the matter and they're all pretty much in agreement on the issue, even the SCOTUS has ruled against the gop's viewpoint. Sadly, the Indiana gop has abandoned the Daniel's inspired outlook on social issues and decided to head down the road less traveled by the reasonable people. They're not interested in growing their party, only playing to the unreasonable base.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Holding tight to a dying cause hoping to mobilize the base? Probably not going to work.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Holding tight to a dying cause hoping to mobilize the base? Probably not going to work.

Yeah, for every die-hard conservative voter they mobilize, I see at least one moderate drifting leftwards.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yeah, for every die-hard conservative voter they mobilize, I see at least one moderate drifting leftwards.

I think I was 70/30 for Republicans vs Democrats and Independents last election. Decisions like this and candidates like Mourdock aren't likely to up their representation on my ballot.

 

[Denny347]

With 55+% of citizens accepting of gay marriage, the GOP is picking a cause that is losing support. Instead, they need to get a head of this. Something like, "While the GOP does not endorse gay marriage, the party does not feel it is its place to stop it either. Adults will decide for themselves." Take the steam right out of the Democrats.

 

[KLB]

With 55+% of citizens accepting of gay marriage, the GOP is picking a cause that is losing support. Instead, they need to get a head of this. Something like, "While the GOP does not endorse gay marriage, the party does not feel it is its place to stop it either. Adults will decide for themselves." Take the steam right out of the Democrats.

Not to mention that the courts have pretty much made it clear you cannot deny it any longer. Has any case in court gone in favor of denying gay marriage?

 

[Denny347]

Not to mention that the courts have pretty much made it clear you cannot deny it any longer. Has any case in court gone in favor of denying gay marriage?

Their own stubbornness will strangle them.

 

[Redhorse]

Here's a good question; why does it matter? There's no way this is that serious for the nations future. One more time, it's not the government's place to decide the morality of anything.

 

[88GT]

To All,

I would really love for each denomination of faith to determine what "marriage" is for them and their congregation, let the government decide what a civil union is and have no special treatment for either.

But that's just me...

Regards,

Doug

That's what is happening now. The state doesn't define a religious marriage. It defines a legal civil union that is called marriage. That legal civil union is defined as being between one man and one woman. There is no discrimination against gays. They are not denied access to that union because they are gay. They are denied that union to another gay because the legal definition does not allow for the two parties to be the same sex. A gay man may create a civil union with a woman, and thus belies the discrimination charge. Conversely, a hetero man may not marry another hetero man, thus belying the the "it's a gay thing" accusation. It's not a "gay" thing. It's contract law, defining who can be a valid participant based on the terms of the contract. No different than restricting contracts to majority age individuals.

That said, I am opposed to the current contract limitations. But make no mistake: the state doesn't define marriage. Plenty of hetero civil unions aren't marriages too.

With 55+% of citizens accepting of gay marriage, the GOP is picking a cause that is losing support. Instead, they need to get a head of this. Something like, "While the GOP does not endorse gay marriage, the party does not feel it is its place to stop it either. Adults will decide for themselves." Take the steam right out of the Democrats.

That would be a good position, but the argument that popularity is the motivating factor for it should be squelched. You've unwittingly created the standard for letting the whims of society dictate freedom.

 

[Denny347]

That would be a good position, but the argument that popularity is the motivating factor for it should be squelched. You've unwittingly created the standard for letting the whims of society dictate freedom.

I understand what you are saying and it's a good point. I just think the strong stand could be unnecessarily alienating to moderates. They could be painting themselves into a corner. Maybe they could spend as much effort on issues that we really need addressed.

 

[88GT]

I understand what you are saying and it's a good point. I just think the strong stand could be unnecessarily alienating to moderates. They could be painting themselves into a corner. Maybe they could spend as much effort on issues that we really need addressed.

1000% agreement here. The GOP has some seriously effed up priorities at this point in time, that's for sure. When I really want to drive myself crazy, I like to sit back and try to understand the rationale for the direction it has taken over the last 10 years or so. But that gets expensive, what with the concussions resulting from the impact of my head with the wall.