Connect with us

Breaking: Indiana Committee Passes Bill Allowing Voters To Ban Same-Sex Marriage



var addthis_config = {“data_track_addressbar”:true};

After hearing over four hours of explanation and testimony, a Republican-led Indiana House committee has just advanced a bill that would place before voters the question of whether or not to ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution. The one-sided ballot initiative would not allow voters to allow same-sex couples to marry, however. The full Indiana House is expected to vote on the legislation soon.

The House Elections and Apportionment Committee, by a vote of 9-3, voted to allow the full House to vote on the legislation. Committee Chairman Rep. Milo Smith, a Republican, rammed through and voted for the bill. He was asked to delay the vote and refused. The bill’s sponsor is Rep. Eric Turner, shown above explaining the legislation to the committee today.

The controversial bill is likely unconstitutional, as similar bans against same-sex marriage have been struck down by federal judges across the nation, most recently in Utah, and by state legislatures, as in Hawaii.

The anti-gay testimony exclusively from the professional, anti-gay evangelical-funded religious right, including attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Most of those who spoke in support of the legislation were not from Indiana. It was not disclosed if they were paid or compensated for their testimony or reimbursed for their expenses.

JacobusOthers included Dr. Brent Jacobus, who claimed he owns a hospital. Jacobus (image, right,) also claimed that same-sex marriage would harm his business, and strongly suggested that heterosexuals live longer than homosexuals.

Rev. Ron Johnson was another anti-gay testifier. Last week, Johnson warned same-sex marriage would lead to “sexual anarchy.” Today he warned of “government thought police” and “sexual sin.” Johnson warned that same-sex marriage would take away the right of the faithful to discriminate against gay people.

Many who testified also falsely claimed that same-sex marriage deprives children of a mother and a father — which they claimed, through various statements from quasi-scientific studies or misleading and cherry-picked statements from pro-equality people, like Barack Obama, harms children.

“A man cannot be a mother, and a woman cannot be a father,” one said.

Rev. Andrew Hunt somehow tried to make the argument that same-sex marriage infringes on his rights as an African-American because of slavery, but also claiming that LGBT rights are not civil rights. “Which one of these things from the civil rights era is analjegous [sic] to the gay marriage movement?”

Many also claimed that if Indiana bans same-sex marriage in its constitution, “nothing will change,” and yet also claimed the very institution of marriage is at stake.

But the opponents of the discriminatory legislation far outweighed the proponents, and the committee was forced to extend the time for testimony to accommodate all those who showed up to today’s hearing.

Maria Rose of Cummins Engineering (NYSE:CMI), a $17.3 billion international corporation, delivered a passionate plea to vote down the legislation, stating that times have changed in the past decade — Indiana has been debating this amendment for that long.

“People come to Cummins because of our core values… Our board of directors is fully supportive” of same-sex marriage.

Rose said that Cummins has lost employees because of the anti-gay laws in Indiana.

Carol Trexler, diagnosed with lung cancer, discussed her unsanctioned marriage to another woman, and what their lives are like. “People understand what marriage means. They don’t understand what Donna and I are… Because we were not married Donna could not take medical leave to care for me.”

Trexler came to today’s hearing after having chemo therapy this morning. “This issue is that important to me.” She talked about all the legal forms they’ve had to fill out to protect themselves, expensive forms that many same-sex couples cannot afford. “Every form I filled out was another reminder that we were treated differently.” “I want to be sure that Donna will be with me at the end and that she will have the same rights of a surviving spouse.” “We want to be have the same protections as our married neighbors, the protections that this amendment would prohibit under law.” “This issue is that important to me”

Another woman who said she is straight and married, and opposed to banning same-sex marriage asked, “Who voted on my marriage rights?,” and added, “I’m a citizen of the United States and we are not a theocracy.”

Elizabeth Reese lamented to lawmakers, “we should be quoting the constitution instead of referencing the Bible.”

Henry Fernandez told the committee that he and his partner have been together for 19 years, and have been raising twins for 13 years. When they moved into the same neighborhood as Speaker Bosma lives, Fernandez said, “divorce rates did not go up, no neighbors moved, property values did not drop…we are not a threat to any family in our neighborhood.”

“A family’s love should not be subjected to a legislative vote or a statewide referendum,” Fernandez added.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Pelosi Strikes Back After New House GOP Leadership, in Act of ‘Revenge’ Immediately Targets Top Democrats



Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi is sending a strong message to House Republican Leadership after now-former Speaker Kevin McCarthy‘s hand-picked acting replacement, U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), evicted her and Steny Hoyer, the former Democratic House Majority Leader, from their Capitol Offices, in what reportedly is an act of “revenge.”

McHenry, a hard-core conservative, made clear his outrage over McCarthy’s ouster when he angrily gaveled out the House on Tuesday.

In one of his first acts as “Speaker Pro Tempore,” McHenry, the longtime McCarthy ally who worked behind the scenes in January to help McCarthy get enough votes to become Speaker on the fifteenth try, ordered Pelosi late Tuesday night to vacate her office immediately.

“Please vacate the space tomorrow, the room will be re-keyed,” an aide to McHenry directed Pelosi.

Overnight, McHenry made the same demand of Hoyer.

Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman reports the evictions are “revenge for Democrats voting with @mattgaetz to boot @SpeakerMcCarthy from the speakership.”

“Expect more of this, GOP sources tell us,” he adds.

READ MORE: ‘Radical Left Marxists’: Trump Launches Attack Hours After Judge Imposes Gag Order

Tuesday night, before the Hoyer eviction, Pelosi had responded with a brutal, damning statement, explaining that she had remained in California, mourning her longtime friend and colleague, the late Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Politico reported that “House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ staff helped Pelosi’s office make the move, according to a spokesperson for the former speaker.”

In a scratching rebuke, Pelosi said in her public statement, “With all of the important decisions that the new Republican Leadership must address, which we are all eagerly awaiting, one of the first actions taken by the new Speaker Pro Tempore was to order me to immediately vacate my office in the Capitol.”

“Office space doesn’t matter to me,” she added, “but it seems important to them.”

“Now that the new Republican Leadership has settled this important matter, let’s hope they get to work on what’s truly important to the American people.”

READ MORE: Trump Has Now ‘Crossed the Line Into Criminal Threats’: Top Legal Scholar

Pelosi, in California, had not voted on removing McCarthy. She had not indicated how she would have voted, possibly out of respect for the office of Speaker of the House.

But after Hoyer was targeted for eviction, the Speaker Emerita issued an official announcement to be placed in the Congressional Record. As C-Span’s Craig Caplan reported Wednesday, Pelosi announced she would have voted to oust McCarthy.

Watch the video clip of McHenry above or at this link.

Continue Reading


Pelosi Delivers Brutal Response After McCarthy’s Acting Replacement Orders Her to Vacate Her Office Immediately



Within hours of Kevin McCarthy being ousted as Speaker of the House late Tuesday afternoon, his hand-picked acting successor, U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), ordered Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi to vacate her Capitol Hill offices “by tomorrow.”

McHenry, whose title technically now is “Speaker Pro Tempore,” is a staunch McCarthy ally who worked diligently behind the scenes in January to help the now-former Speaker get elected on the fifteenth attempt, had an aide issue the order.

“‘Please vacate the space tomorrow, the room will be re-keyed,’ wrote a top aide on the Republican-controlled House Administration Committee,” Politico reported Tuesday night. “The room was being reassigned by the acting speaker ‘for speaker office use,’ the email said.”

Politico adds that “House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ staff helped Pelosi’s office make the move, according to a spokesperson for the former speaker.”

Pelosi, who was honored with the title “Speaker Emerita” in 2022 by the House Steering and Policy Committee in an effort to help unite the House, did not vote for or against McCarthy’s ouster. She remained in California to attend the funeral of her friend and colleague, the late U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.

READ MORE: ‘Radical Left Marxists’: Trump Launches Attack Hours After Judge Imposes Gag Order

But Pelosi, the first and only woman Speaker of the House, who served from 2007 to 2011 and again from 2019 to 2023, did not take McHenry’s order lying down.

“With all of the important decisions that the new Republican Leadership must address, which we are all eagerly awaiting, one of the first actions taken by the new Speaker Pro Tempore was to order me to immediately vacate my office in the Capitol,” Pelosi said in a statement, according to Politico’s Nicholas Wu. “Sadly, because I am in California to mourn the loss of and pay tribute to my dear friend Dianne Feinstein, I am unable to retrieve my belongings at this time.”

“This eviction is a sharp departure from tradition. As Speaker, I gave former Speaker Hastert a significantly larger suite of offices for as long as he wished,” She noted.

“Office space doesn’t matter to me, but it seems important to them,” Pelosi added. “Now that the new Republican Leadership has settled this important matter, let’s hope they get to work on what’s truly important to the American people.”

READ MORE: ‘Terrorist Attacks’: Murphy and Cornyn Slam House GOPers Over McCarthy Ouster


Continue Reading


‘Radical Left Marxists’: Trump Launches Attack Hours After Judge Imposes Gag Order



Just hours after New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron imposed a limited gag order and directed Donald Trump to remove his social media post targeting and attacking, by name, the judge’s law clerk, the ex-president Tuesday evening issued an attack targeting the legal system, and apparently, by extension, Attorney General Letitia James.

Judge Engoron’s Tuesday order barred Trump from “posting, emailing or speaking publicly about any of my staff,” as Politico reported. The judge’s gag order did not extend to any officer of the court, witnesses, or anyone else involved in Attorney General James’ $250 million civil fraud case against Trump.

“Consider this statement a gag order forbidding all parties from posting, emailing or speaking publicly about any of my staff,” Engoron said Tuesday afternoon. “Failure to abide by this order will result in serious sanctions.”

Judge Engoron had announced in court: “This morning one of the defendants posted to his social media account a disparaging, untrue and personally identifying post about a member of my staff.”

“Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances,” Engoron added.

Politico described Trump’s social media post as “a message alleging [the law clerk] ‘is running this case against me.’ The message was pulled from an account on X with fewer than 200 followers. Trump then linked to an Instagram account for Greenfield’s campaign for a judgeship in Manhattan civil court.”

READ MORE: ‘Part of the Authoritarian Playbook’: Trump’s Courthouse Rant Slammed by Fascism Scholars

“’How disgraceful! This case should be dismissed immediately!!’ Trump added. He also posted a photo of her alongside Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and referred to her as ‘Schumer’s girlfriend.'”

And while the judge ordered the social media post taken down, there’s nothing that can be done about the email blast Trump sent to “millions” of his supporters that included the post, as The New York Times reported.

Tuesday evening, despite having already been given one gag order, Trump appeared to tear into the legal system and Attorney General Letitia James in a series of false claims.

After claiming James’ civil lawsuit against him was unconstitutional and election interference, Trump wrote the decision to apply that statute to him “was done by Radical Left Marxists design, and is not the America we know.”

“It is so unfair that I am being tried under Section 63(12), which is unconstitutionally being used to punish me because I am substantially leading Crooked Joe Biden in the polls,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “It is a Consumer Protection Statute, and not meant, at all, for Election Interference purposes, which is what this is all about! Under this Section of the law, I am not even entitled to a JURY (there is no checking of a box alternative!).This was done by Radical Left Marxists design, and is not the America we know. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

As The New Yorker reported last week, the law Trump is referring to was “passed at the behest of one of” James’ “Republican predecessors, Jacob Javits.”

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.