pas cher clomiphene sildenafil pharmacie acheter buspar online loperamide générique antabuse générique propecia pas chere terbinafine sans ordonnance phenergan sur le comptoir propecia belgique dapoxetine sans recette effexor pharmacie priligy dapoxetine zyrtec générique prix propecia paris paroxetine sans ordonnance acheter propecia sur internet pas cher celebrex dostinex sur le comptoir voltaren sans recette acheter naltrexone en ligne
    fosamax mg arava mg venta ventolin genérico cataflam generic leukeran compra online sinemet comprar online costo augmentin costo levonorgestrel arimidex mg aciclovir pharmacie casodex comprar en línea nexium comprar online lasix mg adalat venta libre aciclovir mg venta leukeran genérico venta allegra genérico augmentin barato lamisil comprar online venta aldactone genérico

I Leave Town for a Week and….

…you were thinking I was going to say “and all heck breaks loose” or “nothing really happens”.  Well, I guess one might think it’s a combination of both.

But the one thing that caught my eye wasn’t what happened in Indiana, but what happened in California.  As you probably have heard by now (and if you haven’t, where the heck have you been?!) the California Supreme Court struck down their voter approved state gay marriage ban.

Plenty of people have reason to be upset about this and for different reasons.  But I’m going to tell you why I am.

(Read more after the leap)

It’s one thing to call the California Supreme Court a bunch of activist judges.  I want to, but I feel what they did wasn’t so much activism as it was obstructionism.  The California Supreme Court just flipped the middle finger to millions of people who voted for and were able to pass the ban on same-sex marriage.

Now most of you who have been reading this blog since the beginning (or at least since the beginning of this years General Assembly) know that I believe marriage to be between one man and one woman, but believe that it is an institution of the church and that the state should stay out of marriage completely.  But what grinds my gears more than anything with the California ruling, is that the court overturned what the people of California had voted on, approved and upheld.  That bothers me.  It would bother me even if it wasn’t the state’s ban on gay marriage that was overturned.

So how is this going to play out in Indiana?   It certainly has the supporters of traditional marriage energized.  And with Governor Daniels on thin ice with social conservatives, does this breathe life into gay marriage amendment in Indiana with a special session?  That’s not even close to likely.  But I guarantee you, the ban will return with a vengence in next year’s General Assembly.  It will be an election issue this year (possibly in the governors race) and Republicans could ride that wave to recapturing the Indiana House (if they were smart).

What’s really interesting for Indiana political junkies, is that what happened in California last week just added a new, but familiar flavor, to election year politics here in Indiana.

(Here’s a Wall Street Journal blog post about the national ramifications of the California decision.  Very interesting.)

This post was tagged under: Family, General Assembly, Governor's Race, Indiana Politics, Legislation

2 Responses to “I Leave Town for a Week and….”

  1. chdouglas says:

    I am very sorry to see this ruling, because I would rather the whole thing went away for a while precisely for the reasons you mention.

    That said, the issues at stake are the Constitutional guarantees to freedom of religion and the equal protection of the laws, which claims gay citizens have a right to as much as any other citizens.

    Suppose the majority of the people of California had coalesced to ban fire-arms. Would you then call the judges obstructionist for observing that in a Constitutional democracy there are limits to the power of the majority, that those limits are set by the Constitution, and that the majority cannot transgress those limits?

    This is a particularly interesting question because so very often the right to bear firearms is tied in a Jeffersonian way (or so I understand) to firearms being the individual's last defense against a government turned tyrannical, which government in the United States would, short of total usurpation, become tyrannical only in pursuing the will of a democratic majority.

    Yet now a democratic majority is usurping the Constitution's guarantees to freedom of religion and equal protection, which really are among the core guarantees that the firearm might be needed to protect, and from those so concerned about the second amendment, nary a peep.

    At the moment, we have a tide of tyranny under way against individuals and their freedoms. If the judges, charged with the defense of the Constitution and the rights of individual, are not to do their job, is it the role of the individuals and our firearms?

    It seems to me there is a knee-jerk response among some conservatives to oppose only those judicial actions that defend the rights of others.

  2. Except there's language in the United States Constitution that addresses that very issue you give in your example. So even if there were a California proposition to institute a British style ban on all weapons, and it passes, it'd be overturned before the ink was dry on law's printing.

    There is not, no matter how many way you can twist the words, a guarantee for gay "marriage". Nor is there one for guaranteeing access to abortion but that's for another day.

Leave a Reply

  • Get our Daily Digest!


  • Get Your Voice Heard

  • Indiana Federation of Young Republicans

    Indiana Federation of College Republicans
  • Smart Girl Summit 2013
  • Get to Know Us