| Here are some notable quotes from this morning's state newspapers.
The Indianapolis Star: The amendment failed to pass after a 5-5 vote Tuesday night in the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee. A majority of votes was needed for the resolution to survive.
The decision was highlighted by an emotional speech from Rep. Terri J. Austin, D-Anderson, who voted against the amendment.
"I have cried over this. I have prayed over this. I have sought advice from everyone I know to try and come to the right decision in my heart," Austin said, her voice quivering, her eyes filled with tears.
"I know some people will be disappointed in me, but I'll have to live with that."
[...]
Tuesday's vote was applauded by some of the state's largest employers who opposed the amendment.
Eli Lilly and Co., Cummins, WellPoint, Emmis Communications and Dow AgroSciences spoke out against the amendment in the days leading up to Tuesday's vote. All five companies argued that the amendment would send the message that Indiana was not inclusive and hurt their ability to attract top employees to the state.
"It sounds like our concerns were heard," said Carla Cox, a spokeswoman for Lilly. "This was an important decision for the state of Indiana."
Robert Morris, a spokesman for Cummins, echoed those sentiments.
"This resolution had no place in a state that professes to treat all residents with dignity," he said. "Those who defeated it have done something good for Indiana and good for business." The Courier & Press:Because six votes were needed to advance it to the full House, the bill appears dead for the 2007 session.
If the amendment passed the Legislature, it would have gone to voters in a referendum.
"Clearly there's a lot of concerns about the vagueness of parts of the amendment, what the unintended consequences are," committee chairman Rep. Scott Pelath said. "It was my plan to take a vote, and we took a vote, and the matter is dispensed with."
[...]
During the hearing, Rep. Russ Stilwell said he and his wife of 37 years believe in the amendment's first part: that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But the amendment's second part troubled Stilwell. He recalled that several constitutional scholars had testified about it but could not agree upon its meaning.
"If I don't know what it means, it does not belong in the constitution. If the citizens of Indiana don't know what it means, it does not belong in the constitution," Stilwell said.
"It's very difficult vote, where I live and where I'm from," added Stilwell, D-Boonville. "For those reasons n when we're talking about the constitution - I vote no. The Associated Press:Several lawmakers who voted against the proposal said they were concerned about potential consequences of the second section.
Some Indiana companies and university employees have lobbied lawmakers, saying that part could stop public and private entities for providing benefits to domestic partners. The Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence fears the amendment could nullify domestic violence laws that protect both married and unmarried couples.
Pelath said the state should not change the constitution without knowing all the consequences of the amendment.
"Once the constitution's amended, you don't get a second shot," he said. I'm sure there will be more reaction today, as Eric Miller wanders around the Statehouse, telling anyone who will listen that Democrats voted for gay marriage yesterday. But despite every attempt to make this look like something it was not, the people of Indiana recognize that this was the right decision for the legislature to make. Democrats took a principled stand yesterday against a sloppy effort to amend our state's constitution. The proponents of SJR-7 have no one but themselves to blame for taking a measure that, while already codified into state law, would undoubtedly have passed the House and Senate with little problem, and adding an unnecessary second portion with the clear intent of denying the people of this state the right to change their mind in the future. The business community didn't want it. The people didn't want it. It was a bad bill.
Yesterday wasn't a victory for the GLBT community so much as it was a moment of success for the entire state. Congratulations. |
