Because the best way to get elected in Indiana is to defy a federal judge’s order?
The Defendant Clerks, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those acting in concert with them, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from denying a marriage license to a couple because both applicants for the license are the same sex. Thus they must act pursuant to their authority under Indiana Code Chapter 31-11-4 and issue marriage licenses to couples who, but for their sex, satisfy all the requirements to marry under Indiana law
She and every other clerk has two options – quit or issue licenses.
The super-majority of the Republican Party that is running the state government of Indiana had their chance to re-define marriage by removing it from the laws of Indiana this past year and leaving behind civil unions for all citizens, making marriage a private matter. That was their chance to “protect” marriage, and they blew it. They get what they deserve from their lack of vision.
If you insist on having something enshrined in the laws of the state, be prepared to offer it to all citizens.
No offense, Joe, but that’s not going to help either. This is a rising tide, both legally and in society at large (last poll 59% of Americans support marriage equality). Civil unions would have been swept aside eventually. Next year when the Court hears and rules 5-4 that bigotry cannot be enshrined in law, none of this will matter.
What they should have done is remove the concept of marriage from the state’s laws, so no one would be “married” in the eyes of the law. In its place, leave behind a civil union document – the equivalent of today’s marriage license. If you get that, you’re “together” in the eyes of the law, no need for anything else. (And no more government officials holding ceremonies, you got your paperwork, go on with your life.)
If people wanted to get “married”, they could do so, but it would hold no validity in the eyes of the government. Marriage would be a private ceremony conducted as the participants see suitable. Get married by a religious official, get married by Elvis, get married jumping out a plane – doesn’t matter, it’s your own business.
Based on the all the surveys, nope. War’s over, bub.
Dave Zsays
Freedom – that might be the most asinine statement you’ve ever made. It’s called federalism. It’s how our intertwined system of laws and regulations works.
No, because she just lost all the votes hardcore Republican haters were going to give her….dang, Joe, the relgious nutbags were gonna cross party lines to vote for her and now they won’t.
Even AG Zoeller pointed out in his statement that clerks would be advised to follow the court’s order. 79 counties had accomplished that by close of business on Thursday.
The rising sense of inevitability is most notable among some of the groups that tend to be the least supportive of gay marriage itself, according to our May 2013 survey. The share of Republicans who see gay marriage as inevitable rose from 47% to 73% over the past nine years. The same pattern holds along religious lines: the share of white evangelical Protestants who see gay marriage as inevitable rose from 49% to 70%.
Yet they still give money to Eric Miller. I’ll never understand it.
Says the guy who believes in the America of 1855. You might try your own advice, freedom, and go visit where actual Americans live….try Philly or even Chicago.
The Chicago I know, the real Chicago, would beat the leaving s$$t out of you, almost upon sight. Cities are places where people have short tempers, swear and settle things with violence. I don’t know why people think that cities are these safe islands for weirdos. Small areas, certainly, but let me show you around town, son. Let’s get you out of these new, made-up, areas like “Bucktown,” “Wicker Park,” and the few other places weirdos are moving into.
Cities always were and always will be places that beat up weirdos.
Bullcrap. I grew up in a small town and they ostracized anyone different. We had ONE black kid in our entire high school.
I also know 1) I’m a white guy who’s been to the Southside of Chicago plenty of times and they have entire neighborhoods of Chicago dedicated to gays and lesbians, especially around Wrigley and I never saw anyone getting beaten up there
Wait, wasn’t Freedom just complaining about being called names? But I have been to real places… Lived for a couple decades in Fayette County or Conner-tucky (where my family still is) and then couple decades in White County (Monon) … And all my relatives are in Ripley, Franklin, Union and Fayette counties, no bastions of liberalism, Freedom. They generally don’t beat people up for being weird – although they might not like ya.
1. How do they feel about gay marriage in your posited “Ripley, Franklin, Union and Fayette counties”?
2. Tim introduced Chicago into the discussion, inviting us to see “where actual Americans live.” He picked a bad example, because I know exactly how they’d feel about Tim in most blocks in Chicago.
Right, because “most blocks” are full of non-Americans because they aren’t fond of white guys. You’re letting the facade slip a little freedom, from the high-minded libertarian to neo-Confederate, Wallace-esque tribal views. Don’t let your resentment of others chase away that idealism, friend
Great day for Hoosiers, even the one who don’t like great days for Hoosiers. It’s nice to know the law recognizes what is obvious: a limited government can’t tell you whom to marry.
Anyone opposed to this is in favor of BIG GOVERNMENT
Umm, it is the government that is issuing the marriage license. So yea, it is the government telling a person who they can and can’t marry. You might want to read up on Indiana Code 35-46-1-2. Anyone who is cheering this expansion of government control into private lives can’t claim this isn’t big government. The government will now be in control via state licensed marriage over hundreds of thousands of people….and the divorce attorney lobby is giving high fives all around!
Look at it this way, you want economic stimulus? Let the gays plan weddings… Not to be stereotypical, but we’ve seen in pure economic terms HUGE built up demand. And I defy you to find any decent wedding without at least me gay involved somewhere… And Invest in the divorce lawyers.
I just wish we could get the money back that Greg Zoeller spent on efforts to scuttle this whole issue, knowing all the time that this ruling was eventually going to happen. Of course, he’s going to spend more of our money appealing, so the final total can’t be determined until they give him his head on a plate with parsley sprigs on it..
What makes monogamy so superior to group marriage? Where is monogamy enshrined in the Constitution? As Tim says, “It’s nice to know the law recognizes what is obvious: a limited government can’t tell you whom to marry.”
If two couples wish to marry, how can this court find constitutional grounds to deny their choice?
I don’t even the poor guy that will have to re-write the tax and estate laws after it happens. Will be a nice marriage penalty when all the incomes get stacked into higher tax brackets.
It will happen eventually. The problem with historical polygamy is that it involved abuse, which the state had a rational basis to prevent. But polygamy is “traditional marriage” more than one man and one woman and if a better way can be found to prevent the abuse, I don’t have any problem with people having multiple spouses if that is how they choose to live.
All comes down to money, Inheritance, taxes, dividing property. Sure, there could be a system developed to eliminate all that, but it would be more complicated that what already exists.
You could also just replace the word “marriage” with “civil union” in the state’s laws and remove the restrictions on which two people can get said civil union document.
All of those things don’t require marriage anymore. There are numerous legal documents such as power-of-attorney, payable/transfer-on-death, trusts, wills, etc.. Marriage is foolproof. Any judge at any time could easily rule that regardless of a marriage, x, y, and/or z is to happen. Thank Terri Schiavo and more recently Casey Kasem.
I think your slippery slope argument is cute and all, but it has to sway a Federal Judge (except for Scalia). You could go the full Santorum and start asking when people will start to marry their dogs and we understand that the gays scare you and freedom, but your day is over.
Much like Freedom responded to end of Jim Crow by becoming an anarchist libertarian and worshiping the Articles of Confederation, maybe you could join Westboro Baptist?
“I think your slippery slope argument is cute and all, but it has to sway a Federal Judge (except for Scalia).”
So all our government rests on is the preferences and tastes of five people? We need a reset.
“You could go the full Santorum and start asking when people will start to marry their dogs and we understand that the gays scare you and freedom, but your day is over.”
Or just starting. We’ll see.
“Much like Freedom responded to end of Jim Crow by becoming an anarchist libertarian and worshiping the Articles of Confederation, maybe you could join Westboro Baptist?”
All this risk to the country to placate the urban developmental disorder of having emotional difficulties in asking the other gender for a date.
I read the ruling. It really brings home the idea of equal standing under the law. Basically, the judge is saying that he doesn’t care if Zoeller is the AG or not, he is making the decision. I like that.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_INDIANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
What will Tippecanoe County Clerk Christa Coffee say? Marion County is already issuing licenses.
It would be inappropriate for me to speak or speculate as to that one way or another.
Oh, sorry.
“Marion County is already issuing licenses.”
A staggering tactical blunder for Beth White in her Secretary of State run. The State is not Center Township, Marion County.
Because the best way to get elected in Indiana is to defy a federal judge’s order?
The Defendant Clerks, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those acting in concert with them, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from denying a marriage license to a couple because both applicants for the license are the same sex. Thus they must act pursuant to their authority under Indiana Code Chapter 31-11-4 and issue marriage licenses to couples who, but for their sex, satisfy all the requirements to marry under Indiana law
She and every other clerk has two options – quit or issue licenses.
So says some judge. A judge is not the state government of Indiana.
The super-majority of the Republican Party that is running the state government of Indiana had their chance to re-define marriage by removing it from the laws of Indiana this past year and leaving behind civil unions for all citizens, making marriage a private matter. That was their chance to “protect” marriage, and they blew it. They get what they deserve from their lack of vision.
If you insist on having something enshrined in the laws of the state, be prepared to offer it to all citizens.
No offense, Joe, but that’s not going to help either. This is a rising tide, both legally and in society at large (last poll 59% of Americans support marriage equality). Civil unions would have been swept aside eventually. Next year when the Court hears and rules 5-4 that bigotry cannot be enshrined in law, none of this will matter.
I think you misunderstand.
What they should have done is remove the concept of marriage from the state’s laws, so no one would be “married” in the eyes of the law. In its place, leave behind a civil union document – the equivalent of today’s marriage license. If you get that, you’re “together” in the eyes of the law, no need for anything else. (And no more government officials holding ceremonies, you got your paperwork, go on with your life.)
If people wanted to get “married”, they could do so, but it would hold no validity in the eyes of the government. Marriage would be a private ceremony conducted as the participants see suitable. Get married by a religious official, get married by Elvis, get married jumping out a plane – doesn’t matter, it’s your own business.
A much more clever idea and this beyond the thinking of 90% of Hoosier legislators
This is America, not Sweden. It will always matter.
Based on the all the surveys, nope. War’s over, bub.
Freedom – that might be the most asinine statement you’ve ever made. It’s called federalism. It’s how our intertwined system of laws and regulations works.
You gravely misunderstand federalism.
P.S. How come Doug lets you get away with calling me names?
He said the statement was asinine, not you.
Yeah, doesn’t he know “federalism” means whatever the ultra right wingers say it does?
No, because she just lost all the votes hardcore Republican haters were going to give her….dang, Joe, the relgious nutbags were gonna cross party lines to vote for her and now they won’t.
So, freedom doesn’t understand law or elections
I’m shocked.
I stand corrected – she is not ordered by the court to issue a marriage license.
But she and every other clerk will eventually face the choice of quitting or issuing licenses.
Even AG Zoeller pointed out in his statement that clerks would be advised to follow the court’s order. 79 counties had accomplished that by close of business on Thursday.
“Surveys?” You need to get out and see America, son.
Yet they still give money to Eric Miller. I’ll never understand it.
Gay Marriage: Key Data Points from Pew Research
“You need to get out and see America, son”
Says the guy who believes in the America of 1855. You might try your own advice, freedom, and go visit where actual Americans live….try Philly or even Chicago.
The Chicago I know, the real Chicago, would beat the leaving s$$t out of you, almost upon sight. Cities are places where people have short tempers, swear and settle things with violence. I don’t know why people think that cities are these safe islands for weirdos. Small areas, certainly, but let me show you around town, son. Let’s get you out of these new, made-up, areas like “Bucktown,” “Wicker Park,” and the few other places weirdos are moving into.
Cities always were and always will be places that beat up weirdos.
Something tells me he doesn’t know the “real Chicago.”
Bullcrap. I grew up in a small town and they ostracized anyone different. We had ONE black kid in our entire high school.
I also know 1) I’m a white guy who’s been to the Southside of Chicago plenty of times and they have entire neighborhoods of Chicago dedicated to gays and lesbians, especially around Wrigley and I never saw anyone getting beaten up there
Wait, wasn’t Freedom just complaining about being called names? But I have been to real places… Lived for a couple decades in Fayette County or Conner-tucky (where my family still is) and then couple decades in White County (Monon) … And all my relatives are in Ripley, Franklin, Union and Fayette counties, no bastions of liberalism, Freedom. They generally don’t beat people up for being weird – although they might not like ya.
You’re getting confused with two issues:
1. How do they feel about gay marriage in your posited “Ripley, Franklin, Union and Fayette counties”?
2. Tim introduced Chicago into the discussion, inviting us to see “where actual Americans live.” He picked a bad example, because I know exactly how they’d feel about Tim in most blocks in Chicago.
Clear now?
Right, because “most blocks” are full of non-Americans because they aren’t fond of white guys. You’re letting the facade slip a little freedom, from the high-minded libertarian to neo-Confederate, Wallace-esque tribal views. Don’t let your resentment of others chase away that idealism, friend
Great day for Hoosiers, even the one who don’t like great days for Hoosiers. It’s nice to know the law recognizes what is obvious: a limited government can’t tell you whom to marry.
Anyone opposed to this is in favor of BIG GOVERNMENT
Umm, it is the government that is issuing the marriage license. So yea, it is the government telling a person who they can and can’t marry. You might want to read up on Indiana Code 35-46-1-2. Anyone who is cheering this expansion of government control into private lives can’t claim this isn’t big government. The government will now be in control via state licensed marriage over hundreds of thousands of people….and the divorce attorney lobby is giving high fives all around!
Jimmy meet logic. Logic, this is Jimmy.
Jimmy: Hi, Logic, we’ve never met before
Look at it this way, you want economic stimulus? Let the gays plan weddings… Not to be stereotypical, but we’ve seen in pure economic terms HUGE built up demand. And I defy you to find any decent wedding without at least me gay involved somewhere… And Invest in the divorce lawyers.
So you are the hold-up for Tippecanoe County issuing marriage licenses? When Hamilton County makes Lafayette look conservative, never a good thing.
Measure twice, cut once.
I just wish we could get the money back that Greg Zoeller spent on efforts to scuttle this whole issue, knowing all the time that this ruling was eventually going to happen. Of course, he’s going to spend more of our money appealing, so the final total can’t be determined until they give him his head on a plate with parsley sprigs on it..
Why Stuart, you know he’s just being a good steward of the public trust, right? Kind of his own personal lawyering crusade firm that we pay for…
Well would you look at that. I wish I could hang out at the courthouse tomorrow. Why did I move to Virginia again?
I wonder when Indiana’s bigamy statue will be overturned? Shouldn’t marriage equality apply equally to all Americans?
What makes monogamy so superior to group marriage? Where is monogamy enshrined in the Constitution? As Tim says, “It’s nice to know the law recognizes what is obvious: a limited government can’t tell you whom to marry.”
If two couples wish to marry, how can this court find constitutional grounds to deny their choice?
I don’t even the poor guy that will have to re-write the tax and estate laws after it happens. Will be a nice marriage penalty when all the incomes get stacked into higher tax brackets.
It will happen eventually. The problem with historical polygamy is that it involved abuse, which the state had a rational basis to prevent. But polygamy is “traditional marriage” more than one man and one woman and if a better way can be found to prevent the abuse, I don’t have any problem with people having multiple spouses if that is how they choose to live.
Why should marriage be in our laws anyway?
All comes down to money, Inheritance, taxes, dividing property. Sure, there could be a system developed to eliminate all that, but it would be more complicated that what already exists.
You could also just replace the word “marriage” with “civil union” in the state’s laws and remove the restrictions on which two people can get said civil union document.
All of those things don’t require marriage anymore. There are numerous legal documents such as power-of-attorney, payable/transfer-on-death, trusts, wills, etc.. Marriage is foolproof. Any judge at any time could easily rule that regardless of a marriage, x, y, and/or z is to happen. Thank Terri Schiavo and more recently Casey Kasem.
Marriage is contract between two people, Jimmy.
I think your slippery slope argument is cute and all, but it has to sway a Federal Judge (except for Scalia). You could go the full Santorum and start asking when people will start to marry their dogs and we understand that the gays scare you and freedom, but your day is over.
Much like Freedom responded to end of Jim Crow by becoming an anarchist libertarian and worshiping the Articles of Confederation, maybe you could join Westboro Baptist?
“Marriage is contract between two people, Jimmy.”
So is a mob hit.
“I think your slippery slope argument is cute and all, but it has to sway a Federal Judge (except for Scalia).”
So all our government rests on is the preferences and tastes of five people? We need a reset.
“You could go the full Santorum and start asking when people will start to marry their dogs and we understand that the gays scare you and freedom, but your day is over.”
Or just starting. We’ll see.
“Much like Freedom responded to end of Jim Crow by becoming an anarchist libertarian and worshiping the Articles of Confederation, maybe you could join Westboro Baptist?”
All this risk to the country to placate the urban developmental disorder of having emotional difficulties in asking the other gender for a date.
Yes, nothing spells dangerous for the country like these two ladies getting hitched
facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152321047861144&set=a.124861411143.103109.54444461143&type=1&fref=nf
But two ladies and a dude and it is the end of the world.
No, two ladies and a dude violates the legal standard for marriage. Contract between two people
” Contract between two people”
Missed a part…”of the opposite sex.” If the part you missed is arbitrary, moreso is the number two.
Shocking! Be careful you don’t show them kissing or you’ll engender other thoughts for Freedom.
I read the ruling. It really brings home the idea of equal standing under the law. Basically, the judge is saying that he doesn’t care if Zoeller is the AG or not, he is making the decision. I like that.