Bil Browning

Interview with Tony Perkins at the Indiana Family Institute dinner

Filed By Bil Browning | January 13, 2009 11:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: domestic partner benefits, Family Research Council, gay marriage, IFI, Indiana, Indiana Family Institute, marriage amendment, marriage equality, New Jersey, same-sex marriage, Tony Perkins

I went to a dinner sponsored by the Indiana Family Institute to celebrate their re-introduction of a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions to videotape Family Research Council President Tony Perkins' keynote speech and interview some folks. I'll keep posting video over the next couple days.

You'll notice that Perkins continues the "We don't want to say that this will outlaw civil unions" theme - even though the resolution's legislative sponsors both have clearly said they are targeting civil unions as well. Right wing proponents also say the amendment wouldn't affect domestic partner benefits by touting that the amendment mirrors Kentucky's amendment wording. Watch the duck and weave when I point out that Kentucky's amendment did affect domestic partner benefits at the University of Louisville.


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | January 13, 2009 1:44 PM

Tony Perkins hasn't a clue concerning how Indiana courts go about deciding what a constitutional provision means. He says you should talk to the authors of the proposed amendment to find out, and that's what courts typically take into consideration. Maybe in some states as well as the federal government, but there is very strong precedent in Indiana for the proposition that what this or that sponsor or legislator, either pro or con, says about intent is given almost zero weight. It's what the judges believe the words standing my themselves reasonably mean.

Yes, the judges. The very "unelected activist ones", in this case, those clever black-robed devils on the Indiana Supreme Court that Tony and other constantly berating as subverting God, Country, Motherhood, and an occasionall apple pie for good measure. What is wrong with this picture?

I'll give you three guesses and the first two are worth about as much as Tony's in-depth knowledge of Indiana judicial precedents.

I think you could have left it here, Don:

Tony Perkins hasn't a clue

Don't be reassured by any comments from the Religious Reich that "it's just like Kentucky's DOMA." Under our DOMA, marriages can be dissolved by county clerks or judges if they appear to be same sex, and the law can be used to abrogate "marriages" created by crossing contractual agreements (crossing wills, living wills, durable powers of attorney, and co-owned corporations, for instance). Until Virginia upped the ante a couple of years ago, we had the worst DOMA in the country. Fortunately, to our knowledge, it has been little enforced, if at all.

By the way, domestic partner bennies are still in place at UL and UK, but we fully expect that they'll be attacked again, although they may not have time in this year's 30 day session. After all, life liberty and property are never safe when our legislature is in session......

Don't let the Reichers win, for goodness' sake!

It looks substantially similar to Michigan's Super DOMA amendment passed back in 2004. Backers of our amendment claimed that it would not affect domestic partnership benefits either. Then, almost the very moment it was passed, they went to court to force all state institutions to cease offering domestic partnership benefits, and won.

So, don't believe the lies, Hoosiers! They'll say it's about marriage and then they'll come after everything else.

It's all hogwash. Do i have to be subjected to discussing equality under a different name too? The stench of discrimination is obvious no matter how this is dissected. AND THAT IS THE ISSUE. Newsflash to the intruding religious: Keep it out of my secular government.

That crazy guy. The amendments authors have no clue how it's going to be interpreted and they don't care just yet. But if it gets passed, rest assured that they'll be trying to use it to stop gay people from so much as setting foot in indiana.

I've read their "revised" amemendment several times and call me dumb but I see no difference in impact between the new allegedly "improved" legislation and the original SJR7. It's ambiguously written and the clips of Ryan and Tony prove they have no idea, or care, how it will legally impact gay or straight non-"married" couples.

Not going to take away any rights "gays" don't already have? Oh that's an intelligent statement. The whole point of fighting for civil rights is because a person or group is being denied their constitutional rights.

You don't have to google very far to find that Tony and Ryan's argument citing Indiana's "revised" amendment is identical to Kentucky and Wisconsin's and there has been no problems in those states is BULL:

http://chronicle.com/jobs/blogs/onhiring/index.php?id=58

http://www.news.wisc.edu/14666