Ballard adds name to council's marriage resolution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard on Friday added his name to a City-County Council resolution urging the Indiana General Assembly to reject the proposed same-sex marriage amendment

City-County Resolution 354, co-sponsored by Democrats John Barth, Angela Mansfield and Zach Adamson, and Republican Benjamin Hunter, will be voted on by the full council Monday.

A number of higher education and business groups have spoken out in recent weeks, expressing opposition to altering Indiana’s constitution to define marriage.

“I understand that many people hold differing views on this subject, but Indiana law already defines marriage, and I don’t see the overriding government interest in adding such an amendment to our state’s constitution,” Ballard said in a prepared statement. “Indy is renowned for its ‘Hoosier hospitality’ and working hard to attract new jobs and people to our city.  My hope is that we can continue to work together and focus on those things that make Indy a place where people want to live, work and raise a family.”

State lawmakers will begin considering the same-sex marriage ban in January. Supporters of limiting marriage to one man and one woman say a constitutional amendment is needed to keep the courts from legalizing gay marriage in Indiana. Lawmakers began the lengthy process of placing the ban in the constitution in 2011. The ban won overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans last time around.

If lawmakers sign off a second time on the legislation, it would be placed on the ballot for voters to consider next November.

Thirty states have constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex marriage and five others ban it by law.



  • What a waste
    It amazes me that a state "known" for Hoosier Hospitality feels and expresses so much hate for that which they do not fully comprehend. I pity the small minded fools that seek to further injure their neighbors by promoting this agenda, which sadly is already against the law. I feel for all that suffer the opression that these laws submit them to. I love you all, my fellow human beings, even those of you spread such needless hate. Love Thy Neighbor!
  • Thank you, Mayor Ballard
    Mayor Ballard, Your statement demonstrates taht you are a very good person. Thank you.
  • show me
    adolecent suicide rates are high for all categories of youth ... not only homosexuals. however ... I would be interested in reading the proof of either statement ... prove that a person is / or is not born with a genetic / biological disposition toward homosexuality? Additionally ... comparing the sexual practices of the human race to any/all other species on earth does little to reinforce your arguement ... no other species on earth can read or write ... but the ability to read / write exists in only one? So ... ?
  • Hey Nick,
    You're right Nick, that grade school or high school age homosexual that is bullied until the point of exhaustion, where they turn to suicide as their only way out; you're correct, they made that choice to experience that. Makes perfect sense, who wouldn't choose that? Who wouldn't choose to have diminished rights? My question to you Nick, is prove that it isn't natural, prove that a homosexual is not born that way.
    • Mayor Ballard
      Thank you Mayor! "...amendment is needed to keep the courts from legalizing gay marriage..." Because the supporters KNOW its wrong and discriminatory. If banning legal unions were correct or just they wouldn't be worried that it could be overturned in the courts. I would encourage these supporters to read the U.S. Constitution " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" or perhaps the Pledge of Allegiance "...one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." We are all supposed to have equal rights in the United States; all of us having the same exact rights and responsibilities. When 1 classification does not have the same rights as another it is discrimination. I might also encourage some supporters to review Federal and State law and how those work interpedently and independently of each other. Additionally, perhaps a review of grammar and sentence structure would be in order. So, to sum up, you should be returning to Biology, Civics / Government and English classes. Good luck Gary
    • prove it
      Nick, what proof do you have that people who choose homosexuality are born that way?
      • Biological Fact?
        I'm not sure what biology fact you're referring to, but marriage is not a biological structure. It's actually a religious one, and civic unions are created by law. Homosexuality exists in all species on this Earth, but homophobia only exists in one. People who are homosexual are born that way, and their love is just as equal as heterosexual love. They should be given the same rights in the view of the law as any other legally married couple. You simply cannot take away the rights of a segment of the population just because your religious beliefs don't allow for something that occurs in nature.
      • why are we doing this
        Why at this time in our countries history are we trying to redefine what is biologically a fact,the marriage is between a man and a woman only. What needs to be done is that a National definition of man/woman marriage needs to be defined In the constitution and end of story in state and across the country, forever, with no legal recourse for a minority to change this and force it upon the majority and the natural state of what a man/woman relationship is all about in marriage.

      Post a comment to this story

      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

      2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

      3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

      4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

      5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.