web analytics

Urban Indy Statement Regarding HJ3

freedom_indiana_logo

We the undersigned at Urban Indy would like to take this opportunity to lend our voice in support of Freedom Indiana, and against HJR-3, which seeks to discriminate against Hoosiers based on their sexual orientation.   This constitutional amendment only sends a message that leaders in the state are behind the times.  Instead, elected officials should be listening to the institutions and individuals who have risen up against this proposal.  We hope that, if this measure does pass the State Legislature, that Indiana’s citizens will not enshrine discrimination into the State’s Constitution.

Kevin Kastner

Curtis Ailes

Shayla Williamson

Graeme Sharpe

Social Media

13 Responses to “ “Urban Indy Statement Regarding HJ3”

  1. ahow628 says:

    “Hey guys! I have a great idea! Let’s take an inflexible document intended to protect people’s rights and instead make it take away people’s rights! What? It’s already a law? Who cares! Let’s make it an nearly unchangeable law because we probably won’t regret it!”

    Oh Indiana, what are you doing? This will punish businesses in the state. It will punish residents of this state.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Please, just stop it. Texas is an economic juggernaut and it is far more conservative on this issue than Indiana. This is also true of South Carolina and Oklahoma. Nice try, but I’m tired of buying these compelling lies. Go to Austin or Greenville and check out what real economic vibrancy looks like. Or keep repeating the same old lies as Hoosieria falls into the abyss.

      • ahow628 says:

        The examples you point out tend to be blue collar industry states (TX and OK – energy, SC – auto industry) both of which tend to have a conservative bent. Indiana, and Indianapolis specifically) has been moving from a manufacturing state to a biotech and technology focus. Biotech and technology are going to be far less conservative than the manufacturing they are replacing. Add in our liberal universities (IU and Ball State) and a blue collar employer that has shown itself to be extremely progressive (Cummins) and you have a state where in order to grow these entities we need to have a much more inclusive attitude.

        A ban can certainly be shown to turn people away from coming to our state to work and study, but I’ve not seen anyone showing that people would avoid Indiana if they allowed it.

        In any case, I fail to see why we need a constitutional amendment for something that currently has a law governing it.

  2. Shayla says:

    I honestly don’t understand the reasoning behind some legislators regarding this bill. I read in an article either in the Indy Star or the IBJ website, where one state rep was quoted as saying “some of the fastest growing states have enacted this ban and still thrived” or something to that extent. Really? So when it comes to comparing our state to others and how we measure up, this is what they decide to compare? I’m not for the ban and honestly I would like to see at the least, civil unions recognized and given state benefits. But, for those other states that do have the ban, Indiana does not measure up to those states period. And, this ban will just set us back even further. Texas, Colorado, Utah, and North Carolina are some of the states that have some sort of constitutional ban in place. Yet, they are still able to attract employment opportunities and young, talented professionals to their major cities. They have something they’re offering that we’re not, something obviously more attractive than business tax cuts. This ban will further marginalize our economy. I don’t mean to make this a money issue, because it is a civil rights issue, and every individual deserves to be treated fairly. But something has to get the attention of state representatives to see how this ban would be damaging to Indiana in more ways than one.

    Reference:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

  3. TimB says:

    Where was Freedom Indiana when the Indiana bigamy statue was revised in 1977?

    IC 35-46-1-2; Bigamy

    Sec. 2. (a) A person who, being married and knowing that his spouse is alive, marries again commits bigamy, a Class D felony. (b) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that he was eligible to remarry.

    I say we just get out of government sanctioned marriage all together. If the government shouldn’t be telling gay people, or groups of adults, they can’t marry, who are they to say other folks can marry?

    • Matt Stone says:

      Tim,

      Marriage, as a construct, is two, consenting adults. You cannot marry 3 different people. It is a two-way partnership, 50-50. If 1 man married 3 women, then the balance of power is heavily skewed in his favor.

      This does not prevent people from having polygamist relationships or open relationships or anything like that. It just means they cannot enter into a civil marriage while still married to someone that has is still alive or they haven’t divorced.

      • TimB says:

        Marriage is whatever one claims it is. We are still slightly a Christian leaning nation, though it seems we are moving more and more to a make-your-own morals type of Christian society, for those who still even choose to believe. Thankfully we are a country where religion should play no part in governmental powers and duties. As such, government has a duty to allow as many consenting, legal aged adults to join into any sort of union they are recognizing for others.

    • Matt Stone says:

      As for “get the government out of marriage”, government (usually the courts) plays an important role in the dissolution of marriage in the case of death or divorce. And we, as a society via our government, benefit from encouraging monogamous, long term, committed relationships.

    • Chris says:

      Tim, I am fine with government getting out of marriage period.

      However, it seems strange to dig up a 1977 statute and ask where was Freedom Indiana when the organization didn’t even exist back then. That’s like saying, where was Freedom Indiana when slavery was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution-uh, didn’t exist.

      Also, we are not a “Christian nation.” We are a secular nation with people of many faiths, and many millions of people of NO faith at all.

      You are free to impose whatever limits you like on religious marriages in your own church, synagogue, temple, mosque, etc. But, if you are going to have civil marriage, then it needs to be open to all consenting adults. There is really no valid argument against same-sex marriage, except certain people’s prejudices. So, it really only comes down to personal feelings about the issue. Believe what you like, but don’t let it intefere with others wanting to get married.

      The Indiana House pretty much conceded defeat on this issue. By stripping a key provision out of the proposed amendment, they ensured the amendment will have to be re-approved by two consecutive legislators, meaning it won’t go to the votes until 2016, if at all. By then, this will be a long dead issue, and I doubt it will get brought up again.

  4. Shayla says:

    I agree Chris. This nation is not governed by the Bible. It’s governed by the constitution, and there’ no need to intermingle the two. Because when legislators choose to do so, they pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to “obey”, along with taking items out of context and not researching why certain things were written for that time and purpose. Regarding Indiana, instead of focusing on the 31 states that did pass this ban, look at the states that didn’t, like Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. I’m not trying to downnplay other states or the image they may or may not portray, but to think that a gay couple can get married in Iowa, Iowa? Really? And yet we’re trying to garner attraction to Indiana and portray Indianapolis as a world-class city. A ban like this would make Indiana less competitive compared to other states that do have the ban.

  5. Sean says:

    Supporters of gay marriage claim that it is wrong to deny consenting individuals the right to marry. Who is anybody to tell anybody else they can’t love someone in the context of marriage? Who is anybody to tell anybody else that they can’t have what makes them happy?

    If that’s the case, then shouldn’t supporters of gay marriage also support a man marrying four women simultaneously (if they all consent), or a woman marrying her dog (if it makes them happy), or a man marrying a twelve-year-old child (if they love each other)?

    Those are extreme examples, but the reality is that the underlying ideas that propel the gay marriage movement constitute a slippery slope toward absolute permission for all things under the sun.

    Even if you don’t submit to the Bible’s authority or accept God’s definition of marriage, it must be agreed that restraint is sometimes the means by which freedom is maintained. In a healthy society, there are always limits to our rights. We can’t blindly pursue whatever we desire because those pursuits can sometimes lead our society down a regretful path.

    • Shayla says:

      The pedophilia and bestiality comparisons are very extreme. Children don’t have a developed pre-frontal cortex to make many decisions. That’s why adults protect them from themselves and other adults who don’t respect that innate naivety. Regarding animals, well they’re animals. I think gay marriage supporters, civil union supporters, or those who are apathetic don’t see how allowing gay marriage or civil unions will affect them negatively. It’s hard to say what is needed for a healthy society. In a healthy society should straight couples be allowed to divorce and go through nasty court proceedings leading to arguments over who gets the house and the kids? I’m not for sure how healthy that scenario is. Definitely not healthy for the children, but it does increase the demand for child psychiatrists. Anyway, if two adults declare their love, or what is their love at the time, and want to make it legal, why should anyone stop them? All it means is that their is a higher number of people living in a committed relationship. Are people afraid the divorce rate will increase? Heck, maybe it would decrease. If the latter were to happen, then maybe the sanctity of marriage would actually be saved.

  6. GL says:

    If government had no power to dictate who can and cannot get married, then this would not be an issue. It would also keep politicians and interest groups from using this issue to divide people and create resentment. Get government out of marriage! Allow civil unions for all and leave marriage to faith leaders. Government must take a neutral stand on this issue and start focusing on important issues, like repealing the Patriot Act, stopping wasteful spending and reducing our debt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>