Conservatives angry at GOP chiefs in marriage loss

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Religious conservatives who lost Indiana's gay marriage battle are placing the blame with Indiana's legislative leaders.

American Family Association of Indiana Director Micah Clark said Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma promised him and other marriage ban supporters that the proposed constitutional amendment would pass the House unaltered and receive a public referendum this year. Bosma said Tuesday he promised only that the full House would consider the measure.

Indiana lawmakers amended the measure and delayed a referendum until at least 2016, despite calls from social and religious conservatives to hold the vote this year.

Republican Sen. Mike Delph of Carmel blamed Senate Republican leaders for the delay. But other Senate conservatives who voted for the amended bill said they would have to accept the measure as is.


  • Good Comments/More Action Needed on Other Issues
    Go Brayan and Eric, I'm on board with you. The legislature did seem to listen to its constituents on this issue. Too bad Hoosier voters/citizens/taxpayers do not get as passionately involved over other issues, such as education standards, economic development, "name the doctor" proposed legislation, "drug testing welfare recipients" etc.
  • Constitution
    Clark and Delph - no matter how much he likes to cite the Constitution in his Twitter rants - need to come clean on their seeming indifference toward the Bill of Rights. Not just what it says, but what it means. Marriage before God is one thing (and something I highly value, cherish and respect), but marriage in the eyes of our government - and all the rights that citizenship in the U.S. provides - is quite another. Take it from a moderate-leaning-right (and who votes in Delph's district): separate your religious views from government views and focus on initiatives that build our economy, not threaten it.
  • Appeasement
    Appeasement of the religious right and their archaic views on all social issues needs to stop. Just as the left is left no choice but to vote Democrat, these people are left no choice but to vote Republican - regardless of gay marriage being permitted in The Hoosier (who's yere?) state. Get off this non-issue and move on to something important. Churches can marry gays or not, depending on beliefs. They can make sure they are in a church that refuses to wed gays. In the Biblical sense, they are correct. But, in the real world of real human beings, they continue to be wrong. Judge not...............
  • Propagation does not require marriage
    Hey GG, people have sex and kids outside of marriage all the time. And if you're going to suggest the primary purpose of marriage is propagation of the species then I want to see you requiring all married couples to procreate or lose their marriage benefits. You can't have it both ways.
  • It's inevitable anyway
    I would definitely support changing the laws to extend those withheld benefits you mentioned. I wouldn't worry - no matter what side you stand on, it's just a matter of time and it will be made legal - time is marching in that direction. Peace out and may everyone find their own happiness!
  • Good for you, Elaine...kind of
    Glad you researched your comments a little bit. Are there crazy people in the world? You bet. More than likely, the guy trying to marry his twin sister is doing so to prove your point...although, it is, after all, a heterosexual marriage proposal. But, you need to research a little more...in the current state of affairs in IN, same-sex couples can't file joint tax returns, make healthcare decisions for their partner, or even construct a will that the deceased partner's family can't overrule. And, if the survivor does inherit a home, or other assets, the surviovr pays inheritance taxes on those items. Married couples do not. Those are just a few examples of the disparity of our civil rights. Homosexuals pay the same taxes (often higher taxes because they tend to be more affluent than heterosexuals), yet they're denied the same privileges granted to their heterosexual neighbors. It's good that you say you're supportive of same-sex couples, but you really only support them in being second-class citizens, it appears.
    • I am not a bigot-just traditional
      I have nothing against same-sex couples as life-partners, enjoying co-benefits, joint tax returns, etc., I applaud those who are brave enough to live out of the closet. I just think marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman. Just so I didn't think I was crazy, I went on line and there was actually a man garnering petition signatures to gain support to marry his twin sister (nothing on the dog-thing). Many people in the Bible were polygamists - I don't think that should be legal either. I apologize to anyone I offended by my remark.
      • What's next?
        OK, so procreation doesn't have anything to do with marriage and there are PLENTY of people who are not married who have children. If this is allowed, what next? Marry your dog because he makes you happy? Polygamy? Marry your cousin? Marry your brother? Where does it end?
        • response to z
          And liberals aren't? Or is it that they are just angry at conservatives?
        • Ooops
          It chopped some of my comment out... ...that marriage is only for the sake of procreation, I'm sure my Aunt & Uncle (who are infertile) would be saddened to learn that their marriage is invalid, and less-worthy than those that produce children.
        • Marriage and Tradition
          Since "traditional" marriage has faltered, with nearly a 50% failure rate, I hardly thing anyone should be championing it, in its current form. Times change, and if we fail to change with them, we become obsolete. I'd love it if every household were like June and Ward Cleaver's, but that's an era long-gone. As for the previous comment that marriage is only. That procreation argument is hurtful and shortsighted. With all the hate in the world, what's the matter with two people loving one another, and wanting to celebrate that love, regardless of their genders? Someone said in an earlier post that the legislators should be focused on jobs, not this issue. I agree. And the more they focus on this issue, they only make would-be employers look at other states to open their business. The result is a reduced tax base, less desire for national events to be held here, and a decline in tourism. How does anyone benefit from that? If the Conservatives are unhappy, perhaps they should find a new place to live. It seems Russia might welcome them.
          • Brian Bosma
            Brian Bosma saved every single taxpayer money by doing this. This would end up being challenged in court and eventually overturned by the courts. At that point the conservatives would be whining because their taxes were increasing. I credit Brian Bosma with having the cajones to look objectively at this matter and finding a course of action that saves us all time and money.
          • marraige
            No, Mark, real libertarians (not conservatives) want government out of marriage. Sure, conservativism is somewhat tricky to define, but at its core is the defense--including political defense--of traditional social institutions, and there is no more traditional social institution than marriage. Tradition, history, and experience all demonstrate that stable marriage is beneficial (and perhaps essential) to a good polis and is the arrangement that produces the best outcomes both for children and the broader community, by almost any definition of "outcomes." It is those interested in conserving useful, beneficial traditions--not theocrats or "bitter, discriminatory bigots," as Bryan Cahan asserts in a rather bitter, discriminatory and bigoted tone--that are fighting against this radical, progressive idea that marriage is a private matter between private individuals to be defined however one pleases. Whatever "real" conservatives are, we are not radical individualists. Leave that to the libertarians.
            • Conservatives angry
              Conservatives are always angry at someone about something. If they don't have a case they will make up one. So what else is new?
              • Tolerance Is Freedom
                ConservatiI may disagree with someone, but that does not mean that legislators should make laws, rules,and statues against the people that they disagree with. The State of Indian is starting to look again like an out of touch with reality backward State. I like to remind the Ultra Right Wing Religious Conservatives that 'God Hates Small-Minded, Bigoted, Blind Fanatics....'
              • Marriage Amendment
                This is my reply to the American Family Association of Indiana and, Mike Delph, and others who would deny rights to our citizens: In this country, religion DOES NOT trump Civil Rights and Discrimination. In the USA we do not vote on Civil Rights, the Rights of the people, that is why we have a Constitution that grants Civil Rights, a Declaration of Independence that states "All men are created EQUAL" "That they are.....to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". The Constitution of this country, and of the majority of states, was written, not to advance the power of the majority, but to protect the rights of the MINORITY against the excesses of the majority. To protect the minority from the excesses of religion and religious influence. Your organizations stance against the Same Sex Marriage Amendment is based SOLELY upon religious dogma, specifically one religion - christianity - which is NOT the only religion in this country. Same sex marriages do not threaten in any manner "traditional marriage". The logic you are using is the same religious argument that was used to enforce anti-miscegenation laws in this country until the Supreme Court decision in Loving vs Virginia overturned those discriminatory laws....meaning that religion cannot be used to deny people their civil rights. Such is the case with same sex marriage...but your groups logic is even more flawed in this situation. Marriage , in and of itself, is NOT a religious act, it is strictly a civil contract between two people. There is absolutely NO religious requirement for two people to marry each other, especially since the state requires a couple to secure a Marriage License. Then a marriage ceremony can be officiated by any authorized CIVIL servant (e.g. County Clerk, State Legislator, Mayor, Justice of the Peace, etc.). People may CHOOSE to have their marriage completed in a religious setting if they are so inclined, and any religious institution may, or may not, grant such a ceremony, as in the case of interfaith couples. Same sex marriage does not endanger in any way the ability of a religious institution to accept or deny such unions, and no laws can be written, in this country, to force religious institutions to do otherwise. Your stance is flawed and discriminatory, with NO factual substance to back up your opposition, other than RELIGIOUS reasons which are NOT valid in deciding laws which affect the Constitutional RIGHTS of our citizens. Your stance is bitter, discriminatory, and bigoted. I assure you that there will NEVER be a constitutional amendment in this state banning same sex marriage, and also that eventually the current law banning such unions will be eradicated.
              • Gay marriage is unnatural
                Lets see, propagation of humanity requires the marriage of a man and woman.
                • Liberals delay to reject moral principles
                  So in an election year the cowardly conservatives delay the vote and minority liberals will reject this marriage amendment in 2016. Keep in mind that conservative rights are usurped by the liberal minority by pounding our rights into the ground over time by not relenting and allowing law to stand up to their immorality.
                • So Where Are The Jobs
                  The State Legislature seems to have lost their compass. Jobs! All of this other political Mumbo-Jumbo does not put food on the tables of Hoosiers who just need a job.
                • Real conservatives...
                  Real conservatives want government completely out of marriages irrespective of sexual orientation. It should be a private legal contract period.
                  • The AFA?
                    Brian Bosma compromised the integrity of his office and artificailly extended the life of a divisive (and ultimately doomed) amendment because he made a promise to an inconsequential fringe group? True small government conservatives should be disgusted.
                  • Micah Clark
                    Boo hoo Micah Clark. You sound like a whiny toddler. Thanks to a federal judiciary that actually understands the U.S. Constitution, gay marriage is coming to Indiana, whether you like it or not!

                    Post a comment to this story

                    COMMENTS POLICY
                    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:
                    thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

                    Subscribe to IBJ