Judge throws out Indiana ban on same-sex marriage


#1

INDIANAPOLIS — A federal district judge struck down Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, saying the law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/indiana-same-sex-marriage/11354831/

This happened here in my state and I am very angry and sad about this! :mad::frowning:


#2

If you get frustrated about what is going on with homosexual ‘marriage,’ consider this excerpt from Archbishop Cordelione’s speech from the March for Marriage:

We can take heart from what we are seeing now in the pro-life movement. Back in the early 70s, public support for abortion was growing rapidly, and as with marriage redefinition today, a generation gap opened in the polls, many said that opposition to abortion would literally die-off, that was the future, before long it would no longer be an issue. Instead something unexpected happened, a relatively small band of faithful belivers held the line on the sancity of human life in the womb, and today, two generations later, the pro-life movement is flourishing like never before. We now have the most pro-life generation of young adults since the infamous Roe decision.

youtube.com/watch?v=gKqhClu0sHE#t=7109


#3

I think relatively long-term public acceptance of same-sex marriage is more likely to clock in a bit below of the trajectory of birth control approval, which is around 90%, but certainly above abortion and points south of that. (Link)


#4

The courts are busy overturning the will of the people, tradition and reason itself. In my state we voted for a marriage amendment two years ago and I fully expect it to be ruled unconstitutional in the the near future.

We may have a more pro-life generation but the court ruling declaring abortion a right has not been corrected. In quite a few states they have passed laws requiring abortion clinics to actually adhere to some minor regulations. Whether these laws stand we don’t yet know. But even if they do abortion remains legal and all that has been accomplished is making them more difficult to perform. I’m not saying that good has not resulted, but that our law remains perverted.


#5

The problem is that with people being legally married now, I cannot foresee a time when somehow that legal status would be revoked. :frowning:

For my own peace of mind, I am simply going to hold on to our beliefs put my faith in God.

Many things are legal that are not right, this is now just one more of them. People call their pets their “child” - I know it’s not and won’t refer to it as such. Ditto for this - call it a “marriage” if you want - I know it’s not. :shrug:


#6

People are getting more and more used to it.

Even these threads now get a handful of replies. If this had happened 3 or 4 years ago, there would be hundreds and hundreds of outraged replies.

I think its only going to keep moving the same direction.


#7

Very sad indeed.


#8

You know, I am getting really sick and tired of activist judges forcing “gay marriage” and other things on states that don’t want them. I guarantee that if “gay marriage” were put to a vote in Indiana that most voters would reject it.


#9

How many rights do you reckon minorities would have if it was up to the majority?


#10

No doubt. It’s possible but unlikely that we can escape the societal chaos that accompanies our moral decline.

Ironically, when societies awaken to the depopulation crisis heading our way as a result of declining fertility rates, same sex unions may fall into disfavor.


#11

:thumbsup:

The answer would be none. Thank God most of the time civil rights are not up for popular vote.


#12

:thumbsup:


#13

Abortion is still legal, but pro-lifers did not give up in 1973 with Roe v Wade, and it has been over 40 years since that ruling and pro lifers determination to end abortion is still ongoing. While abortion is a different issue, it shows how culturally and legislatively things can create change.

Regardless of when it was and there is question whether the results would be different now, but when constitutional amendments were up for a vote in variuous states regarding banning homosexual ‘marriage,’ these bans passed by people voting, wheras homosexual ‘marriage’ is being legalised by Judges. Homosexual ‘marriage,’ has been passed by people voting in very few states in comparison to states where it has been banned by people voting.

Isn’t there sometimes increased opposition to something when people see fall out in society from whatever the thing is that changed society? If people see negative fall out from legalising homosexual ‘marriage,’ that may increase opposition. One of the fall outs is the right of businesses to refuse providing a service for a homosexual ‘marriage’ ceremony. While Rassmusen polling were off in their election results in 2012, they did come out with a poll that said, ‘85% Think Christian Photographer Has Right to Turn Down Same-Sex Wedding Job.’ If that is true, that conflicts with some of the most ardent homosexual ‘marriage’ supporters, who do not support people having the right to turn a job in that situation, so already, there is some division that can be seen and it seems plausible to think that if homosexual ‘marriage’ is legalised in more places, the more religious liberty problems may be seen.


#14

I believe that in, say, 50 years or even less at the rate things move now, there will be a change in people’s minds about same sex marriage, the same as we are seeing more and more with abortion. I don’t think most people really understand what’s at stake. In time, it will become clear. Only after it’s been gone for awhile will people see what traditional marriage actually did for society (or the common good if you will). I’m not saying it’ll be fun to get there, but eventually I think we’ll go back to the traditional marriage structure because kids need it. Sometime it goes wrong, but it is still (and always will be) the best model out there.


#15

?
Judge Richard Young isn’t an “activist”.
And thank goodness, but no one is forcing you to marry someone of your own sex.
(and no one is preventing you from marrying someone of the opposite sex, either).

Why do you think most voters in Indiana would reject same-sex marriage?

.


#16

Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Indiana

The dignity of the human person, rooted in his or her creation in the image and likeness of God, is a fundamental principle of Catholic social teaching. The Church upholds the dignity of every human person, including persons with same-sex attraction, whom we accept and love as our brothers and sisters.

At the same time, the Church upholds the dignity and sanctity of marriage as a natural union established by God between one man and one woman, intended towards the establishment of a family in which children are born, raised, and nurtured. This is not simply a matter of belief. It is at the very heart of the nature of marriage. Thus, it is not within the power of any institution, religious or secular, to redefine marriage since it is God who is its author.

Today’s decision by Richard L. Young, Chief Judge United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, to redefine the institution of marriage as an emotional partnership between two consenting adults regardless of gender ignores this fundamental and natural truth of marriage and opens its definition to the whims of public opinion.

With deep respect for all our brothers and sisters, we nevertheless see no basis in law or in nature for any definition of marriage that seeks to expand it beyond that of a covenant between one man and one woman. Our position on this matter seeks only the common good of all men and women as well as the health and well being of families.

As pastors, we will continue to preach and teach the truth of marriage as it is ordered by God, encouraging all people to embrace the fullness of that truth, while upholding the dignity of all persons. We will continue to work through the Indiana Catholic Conference to encourage our legislators and judges to uphold this truth as well. We urge all involved in this issue to conduct themselves with mutual respect and civility in public discourse.

Most Reverend Joseph W. Tobin, C.Ss.R., D.D.
Archdiocese of Indianapolis

Most Reverend Christopher J. Coyne, S.L.D.
Archdiocese of Indianapolis

Most Reverend Charles C. Thompson, D.D., J. C.L.
Diocese of Evansville

Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades, D. D.
Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend

Most Reverend Dale J. Melczek, D.D.
Diocese of Gary

Most Reverend Timothy L. Doherty, D.D., Ph.D.
Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana


#17

I think many people who support it, don’t realize the impacts it has on religious freedom. As Bill Owens said, the right of those to freely live out their faith without penalty, is the real civil rights issue of our era. That and the unborn.


#18

But the American public’s mind has not changed about artificial birth control, which is morally approved of by 9 out of 10 Americans. I think that is a more apt comparison to this situation. I certainly don’t see why same-sex marriage will resolve as a social issue more like abortion and less like birth control.


#19

DaddyGirl;12117654]?
Judge Richard Young isn’t an “activist”.

This definitely qualifies as activism.

Would it be any different if they forced vegetarians to eat meat?

And thank goodness, but no one is forcing you to marry someone of your own sex.
(and no one is preventing you from marrying someone of the opposite sex, either).

GLBTQ folks already have the same rights as straight people. A straight person cannot marry someone of the opposite sex, and GLBTQ can marry someone of the opposite sex.

That’s equality. :yup:

Why do you think most voters in Indiana would reject same-sex marriage?

Because morally and culturally they find wrong. Surely, this post isn’t saying that it’s okay for the court to decide someone’s culture??? :ehh:


#20

Going by history they would have many rights. If by rights you mean what was classically meant, that certain actions were prohibited. Then the majority or the people with political power did often honor these rights for the minority or those without political power. If you mean positive rights, whereby people were obliged to give something to someone else, then these are often passed by democratic political systems which supposedly reflect the will of the majority. What rights do you think minorities would not have?

I of course think pro-lifers should never give up the fight. But legally nothing has really changed. The only way to have real change is for the court to reverse itself, which it almost never does. Or to have an amendment to the US constitution. But even here the court could assert that such an amendment violates the constitution itself. Of course that is ridiculous, but so is the court.

I agree that most states prohibited so called same-sex marriage by the will of the people. But many states also had laws against abortion. My state had laws against abortion. The SCOTUS invalidated them. My state has a constitutional clause describing marriage. I’m sure the SCOTUS will invalidate that as well.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.