Gov. Daniels Strong On Protecting Marriage

     In a wide-ranging interview with The Indianapolis Star today, Indiana's Gov. Mitch Daniels strongly supported an amendment to the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and thereby remove this seminal issue from the courts.  From the interview, by political reporter Mary Beth Schneider:

"Should the legislature vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in this session?"

"It's up to them. As a believer in traditional marriage and a supporter of the law we have on the books now, I agree with the idea of protecting it against some creative judicial ruling in the future," Daniels said.

     This view is consistent with the Governor statements during his campaign and since serving as Governor.  Those of us who knew the Governor before his run for public office also know him to be a man a faith who prays and has a humility that can only come from an encounter with the Divine, especially in light of his many and obvious talents and gifts. Moreover, we know this view is from his heart -- not a position fashioned with an eye toward electoral politics in the Hoosier State. 

    Veritas Rex applauds the Governor for this positive, pro-family position, his consistent stand in public life for traditional marriage, and his personal example of commitment to marriage and family as the husband of First Lady Cheri and the father of four wonderful young ladies.

Comments

[Chris Douglas]

Nice spin, Curt. The Governor in his interview declined to offer any support for legislative action on your amendment whatsoever in that quote. (While I don't support current law, I too do believe in traditional marriage. The guarantee of its equal protections to gay couples in no way threatens traditional marriage, except in the fevered imaginations of the intolerant.)

And while the governor supports the power of the legislature and current law, he does not it seems to me indicate sympathy here with denying the legislature the power to define marriage as it may wish, as your amendment clearly does.

I note that while the Governor agrees "with the idea of protecting it against some creative judicial ruling in the future", he indicates no support (nor to my knowledge has he) with your particular amendment. To the contrary, the refusal of amendment supporters to sit down with the gay community early on and find ways of mitigating the damage of the amendment I suspect played heavily. In short, you are guilty of over-reaching with the current amendment.

I know you find yourself in an awkward position. How do you depict your movement as representing Mom and Apple Pie when the state's economic and political leadership has generally declined to endorse your amendment? Your answer has necessarily become to depict all leadership positions as consistent with yours... which they are not.

In High School parliance, while you get failing grades in history, civics, and politics, you get an A for creative writing.

[Sue Swayze]

Nonsense. Governor Daniels supports the marriage amendment, he just didn't shout it from a rooftop. And in high school parliance, that "don't mean he can't hang with both crowds". Sometimes I think you miss it when people show you tolerance and respect but at the same time don't think we should change the history of the family in our society to allow you to marry. Both are true. And - and I won't go again on a long thread - the amendment DOES protect against "some creative judicial ruling" while not prohibiting relative legislative rulings.

[Excluded]

Sue, bless you. You've managed to do it again by introducing yet another brand new bit of terminology into the discussion over SJR-7. This time it is "relative legislative rulings". What in the world does THAT mean?

[Sue Swayze]

Legislative rulings that relate to, but are not, marriage, such as civil arrangements. While SJR 7 won't let a judge misconstrue anything to REQUIRE incidents of marrage, that doesn't mean the legislature can't legislate relative types of contracts.

[Excluded]

Thanks. But how does a legislative "ruling" differ from a "law"? And is there a reason you now are starting to use the term "contract". How does a legislature legislate a "contract"? Does this modify the term "union" in the first sentence? If not, can you elaborate on just what a "union" is legally?

[Greg]

What could be "worse" than what the Sodomites are saying about Governor Daniels (their friend):

http://intraa.tgcrossroads.org/connections/story/?iid=37&aid=893


"Our efforts are paying off in very tangible ways. On May 10th,Republican gubernatorial candidate, Mitch Daniels, added gender identity as a protected characteristic in his campaign's employment policy.

On May 19th, a representative from the Mitch Daniels Campaign attended the
INTRAA fundraiser benefiting Indiana Equality and made a financial contribution to our efforts while being able to meet and talk with transgender constituents and allies from Indiana Equality."

Governor Daniels is in bed with the "transgender" people. On the other hand, in the same week he is in bed with the "transgender" people, he states the following on June 15th:

"I do believe there are other things more important to our future,at least other things that a governor and the people around him can try to work on," he aid. "And, secondly, I'm always trying to bring this state together, and we don't have, I don't believe, the luxury of division."

Yet, six days earlier the Governor was not concerned about divisiveness when his letter to Indy Pride welcoming homosexuals attending a festival and parade was published in the gay pride program. The annual Indianapolis gay pride event featured such apparently non-divisive items as drag queens on stage, men in leather bondage outfits kissing on the street, and a parade Grand Marshall who was honored for his authoring of a stage play and film called "Southern Baptist Sissies." Yet, somehow standing for the importance of both husbands and wives, mothers and fathers to the family unit is not important, and just too divisive!

Now, you can believe in the tooth fairy if you want too, but I'm not buying it!

[Greg]

In my eariler post, I failed to note that the quote of Govenor Daniels was in reference to the Marriage Amendment. Here is the quote again,

"I do believe there are other things more important to our future,at least other things that a governor and the people around him can try to work on," he aid. "And, secondly, I'm always trying to bring this state together, and we don't have, I don't believe, the luxury of division."

[Terri]

Sounds like once again, our pro family groups are selling their souls for "status" and prestige. When will these groups actually do what they say they do... STAND FOR FAMILIES without making deals behind closed doors? That takes courage to stand apart.

[REAL CONSERVATIVE]

Soooo right, Terri You all talk about “pro-family” organizations selling out…..shame on IFI for mouthing the position just to get in bed with CINOs (Conservatives in Name Only) that the marriage amendment would still allow Gen. Assembly to pass civil unions or domestic partnerships. How can you define marriage as only between one husband (male) and one wife (female) and then say you can still have what’s just a big counterfeit (civil unions) if same sex? An example:: If a law define alcohol as such-and-so ingredients and then bans it, how can somebody be legal when drinking or selling it just by putting another label (like “lemonade”) on the same ingredients? It would still be alcohol, wouldn’t it? They would get laughed out of court and be locked up in the funny bin if they argued that it wasn’t. Common sense says its the exact same thing with defining of marriage. If you think my example is bad please say how. No fancy lawyer talk on this. Nothing to have to hide here……we don’t want our lawmakers taking easy road of saying the amendmment allows something when it doesn’t. Take a stand against civil unions and stop trying to have it both ways like cuddling up to Daniels when you know he is also a CINO on this matter. Thank you.

[Friendly Critic]

"True Conservative", if you are trying to say that Governor Daniels doesn't buy in to the hijacking of his party by religous fundamentalists who think it their mission to bring God's Kingdom on Earth by means of constitutional amendments, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. As to the point you say about defining alcohol and then trying to label it as lemonade, you may have a point. Sue Swayze and Ryan McCann have insisted that it is "clear" that SJR-7 would permit the legislature to enact civil unions that were exactly the same thing as marriage, despite the exclusionary definition to the contrary. I guess I just don't understnd what a "definition" is....maybe they need to "construe" it for me and other dubious readers.

[Here's Some Help]

Sue and Ryan are absolutely correct. The Legislature can afford the people the opportunity to give marriage our highest protection in law even as it also creates a new, novel relationship called civil unions. I wouldn't support that, but it can be done. Of course, some would sue about the phrase "legal incidents of marrige." The courts would decide if civil unions = marriage (lkegal incidents thereof). Our judges/justices would answer that question, but to use your analogy, FC, the Legislature can ban alcohol for anyone under 21, allow beer (one form of alcohol) to be served under one set of regs, wine another, and spirits yet a third (which it does!)

Most of our legislators can chew gum and walk at nthe same time. And so can most Hoosiers as well.

[Friendly Critic]

Sorry, "Here's Some Help", but your own purported attempt at an analogy is all wet, in more ways that one. In each case, "beer", "wine", and "spirits" all have particular legal definitions. If somebody without a license to sell beer did so claiming that cans of it labeled "Gatorade" they would quickly find out what defining something (especially when they put the word "only" in front of it, as in SJR-7, results in.

So the courts would decided the matter of what the language means, huh? Would they happen to be very same courts that consist of "unelected activist judges"? I sure wish that Sue, Ryan, and others writing for IFI would give us a detailed lesson on why they distrust those awful Hoosiers one minute concerning marriage rights but have full faith in them when they will have to interpret their pet pet constitutional amendment the next. Does it depend on the type of robes they wear when they do each?