Just A Thought: Indiana and Montana Hate The Gays

Apparently the members of the Indiana Senate don't read polls; you know, like the new one that came out last week that says a majority--and yes, it's a slim majority--of Americans don't have an issue with marriage equality.

But in Indiana the Republican controlled House and Senate set aside what seems to be the will of the people and approved a proposed amendment that would not only ban gay marriage, but also ban civil unions.

Now, while doing this, they also failed to do anything about jobs, the economy, the environment, or any of those pesky little annoyances; it was much more important for the Indiana state legislators to enact Hate.

Now, it's not all said and done in Indiana, and when the people of the state waked up and realize their elected officials are not focusing on the issues near and dear to the hearts of the voters, these Republican asshats will be swept from office.

See, the Indiana General Assembly still needs to pass this anti-LGBT measure again in 2013 or 2014, and then it goes before the voters, and then the Indiana state constitution can be amended to add Hatred and Bigotry and Intolerance.

Isn't it lovely?

And while current Indiana state law already prohibits gay marriages--See? It's already illegal--amendment sponsor, Republican wingnut with too much time on his hands and not even good sense in his head, Senator Dennis Kruse says the measure would provide maximum protection for the basic family unit of society.

Cuz, you know, we Gays are out to destroy the family. It's been our plan ever since we were invented.

And now, onto Montana, Big Sky Country, er, Big Lie Country.

The Montana House blocked an attempt this week to blast a stalled bill out of committee so that state representatives could debate whether to repeal the state law declaring gay sex to be illegal.

Yes, in Montana it's illegal for The Gays to have sex. They are legislating what Gay folks do in their own homes. Now, to be fair, the Montana Supreme Court, in a unanimous 1997 decision, struck down the law banning gay sex as unconstitutional, but no one ever bothered to remove it from the state law books, but before the Supreme Court ruling, gays and lesbians in Montana risked being charged with felonies and if convicted, they could have faced a maximum penalty of a 10-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine.

For having consensual sex. In.Their.Own.Homes.

A leading opponent said the court didn't strike down the law as unconstitutional.

Judiciary Chairman, Republican Congressman Ken Peterson, says the Supreme Court ruling held that same-sex adults, in private, not-for-commercial purposes, are protected by the right to privacy, not that the law was unconstitutional.



Diane Sands

 Democratic Congresswoman Diane Sands says, "It's been almost 15 years since the Supreme Court ruling. It's about time we removed that language from the books....It's about the value we all place on the constitutional right to privacy and the right of members of the gay and lesbian community of Montana to not be criminals under the law Let's bring it to the floor and debate it and take action on it." 

It was Congresswoman Sands who proposed getting the bill out of the House Judiciary Committee, but her motion received just 51 votes in the 100-member House, not the 60 votes needed. 

Diane Sands' motion drew support from one Republican, Congressman Steve Gibson, who said the issue is not about gay marriage or religion, but rather "about freedom, privacy, respect, personal responsibility."

Yes, a Republican said that. And, he added, "Do you want the government in your bedroom? I don't. I'm sure everybody in the House knows someone in their family, a friend or a person that is homosexual. Do you love them? Do you respect them? I do."

But then, the less cool and rational Republican heads got into the fray, with one, Republican Congressman Michael Moore--No, not that one--arguing against Sands' motion, actually citing Scripture and natural law and "eternal law": "I would say that the protections provided in the privacy clause of the Montana Constitution, which are extensive and which we've been over numerous times in the House Judiciary Committee, the protections are sufficient."

But keep the Hate Law on the books?

Let's give Diane Sands the last word: "You know, we are members of your family and your community. We sit next to you in your pew at church and in some cases we're your pastor, whether you know it or not. We care for your parents in nursing homes. We're your nieces and nephews. We fill the potholes on your streets, and we even serve beside you as members of the House and the Senate. These days we serve beside you in the House and the Senate as out members of the lesbian and gay community, partly because we were not under the threat of this law."

Oh, Montana.
Oh, Indiana.

The times are a'changing. Are you sure you want to be at the back of the line as we march toward freedom, or do you want to be remembered as the ones who stood up against intolerance and bigotry and hate?

The choice is yours.

Montana
Indiana