Anti-Gay, GOP State Rep Caught With Male Teen

[NYFelon]

Rep. Hinkle's Voting Record

 

[Expat]

Rep. Hinkle's Voting Record

I scanned through and did not see any "gay votes". Am I missing something?

 

[mrjarrell]

So, what are his allegedly "antigay" votes?

Well, since the gop voted across the board to support and pass Joint resolution 6 this past session, that would be the anti-gay vote he cast. Government has no business defining marriage between consenting adults. JR 6 passed overwhelmingly, did Hinkle not vote for it? Was he part of the lone 29 or so people who voted against Bosma's wishes?

 

[T.Lex]

It looks like he voted against gayming tax amendments?



ETA: While gov't may not have any business in defining marriage, it has historically acted like it does. (In some ways that are probably good - anti-polygamy - and some that are certainly bad - miscegenation.)

 

[mrjarrell]

I scanned through and did not see any "gay votes". Am I missing something?

Sj 6 won't be shown at Vote Smart yet, since it requires 2 legislative sessions to become complete. The gop voted overwhelmingly in support of it.

 

[4sarge]

I scanned through and did not see any "gay votes". Am I missing something?

Hmm, Clairvoyant

 

[Phil502]

So all democrats are anti-heterosexual?

 

[T.Lex]

So all democrats are anti-heterosexual?

No no no - you have it all wrong. Dems are clearly omnisexual. Bill Clinton would stick it just about anywhere!

 

[mrjarrell]

So all democrats are anti-heterosexual?

Actually a huge chunk of the Indiana delegation voted right alongside their gop brethren on SJ 6. Less than 30 voted against it. I'd say that puts them all pretty much in the same boat. You can't go wrong in this state taking away rights from an icky minority.

 

[jsharmon7]

I've met Mr. Hinkle many times and always thought he was a pretty nice guy. I guess everybody has their secrets and private lives. His career is done regardless.

 

[T.Lex]

Color me confused. Not to necessarily encourage the further derailment of this thread, but what rights does SJ6 "take away"?

 

[level.eleven]

Come on guys. A cookie cutter family values/religious conservative got busted with a twink and tried to pay him off - along with his wife apparently. His voting record is hypocritical when compared against his personal life. I feel sorry for these types when they get outed. It has to be difficult dealing with such an internal struggle and leading two seperate lives.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, time to raise an age-old question. He's an elected representative. He is SUPPOSED to keep with the desires of his constituents almost to the exclusion of his personal values.

All politicians (or at least the good ones) are to a certain extent "hypocritical" in the sense that they have the ability to separate their personal views when they vote the will of their constituents.

ETA:
Depending on who is pissed off at you, a legislator is either hypocritical for voting his conscience when it departs from the will of the electorate, or hypocritical for voting the will of the electorate if it contradicts his own personal values.

 

[mrjarrell]

Color me confused. Not to necessarily encourage the further derailment of this thread, but what rights does SJ6 "take away"?

It forbids consenting adults from marrying whom they choose. Except for a chosen few.

 

[esrice]

along with his wife apparently.

That's the part that's really got me .

 

[T.Lex]

It forbids consenting adults from marrying whom they choose. Except for a chosen few.

Ok - interesting characterization. But, what right was "taken away"? Gay people didn't have the right before, so it couldn't be taken away.

Unless I misunderstand your point?

 

[iChokePeople]

Come on guys. A cookie cutter family values/religious conservative got busted with a twink and tried to pay him off - along with his wife apparently. His voting record is hypocritical when compared against his personal life. I feel sorry for these types when they get outed. It has to be difficult dealing with such an internal struggle and leading two seperate lives.

He wasn't trying to marry the lad, was he?

 

[mrjarrell]

Ok - interesting characterization. But, what right was "taken away"? Gay people didn't have the right before, so it couldn't be taken away.

Unless I misunderstand your point?

True, to an extent, but just because something is already forbidden (which gay marriage is in the state of Indiana. Politicians just want to make it more illegal)., doesn't mean it's not a right. Just that that right is already being infringed upon. Same with gun laws. UnConstitutional on their face, but still the law, despite the right to keep and bear arms.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[T.Lex]

True, to an extent, but just because something is already forbidden (which gay marriage is in the state of Indiana. Politicians just want to make it more illegal)., doesn't mean it's not a right.

You do realize, though, that the gov't's authority to regulate (even to define) marriage has been around about the same amount of time as gun regulations?

That is actually an interesting analogy.

But, I think you'll be hard-pressed to argue a natural right to actually marry - as opposed to just have sex with - anyone you want. The "institution" of marriage is different even than a life-long commitment.

 

[4sarge]

He wasn't trying to marry the lad, was he?

Maybe, it was a Shotgun Wedding

So all democrats are anti-heterosexual?

No, No, only the cloistered er closeted ones are Bitter NOT Angry