The one silver lining of the property tax fiasco from last year was that it properly distracted social conservatives in the General Assembly from their usual pet project of pursuing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex couples from marriage in the state of Indiana. Which isn't to say that they didn't try -- they did -- but rather that their efforts proved fruitless in a political environment that saw people clinging much more tightly to their pocketbooks than the proverbial guns and religion.
Luckily for us, Bill Ruthhart of the Starabrings word this morning that the "we have bigger things to worry about" talking points will likely be just as effective this year.
But after the effort died twice, the long and complicated process of amending the constitution would have to start all over again, and no one in the Statehouse seems prepared to go to the ramparts.
Even the Republican lawmaker who has pushed the measure in the past says he doesn't plan to do so in the 2009 session.
"I think the issue is still relevant in that it continues to be debated in a variety of states and continues to be heard by a variety of courts," said state Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield.
"However, if action is to be taken this time, it would be my intent to see it start in the House, because that's been the holdup in the past, and until that legislative entanglement is resolved, there's not much to be achieved through the Senate yet again."
Rightfully so, the House leadership points out that they have some more pressing issues on their plate at the moment. All that being said, expect the same-sex specter to come flying out of Brian Bosma's closet before 2010, when the GOP caucus will look to pull out all of the stops ahead of the looming redistricting battle of 2011.
On a completely unrelated note, my email inbox just delivered the message that Indiana Equality lobbyist Mark St. John will be speaking at IU Law tomorrow -- with free pizza, no less. May I offer the recommendation that if any of you ever want to speak at the Law School, attracting a large audience is as simple as a phone call and a bulk order for food. You'd be surprised how engaged folks will become on short notice.
When the California courts determined a few weeks ago that everyone in that state is entitled to happiness -- insert requisite marriage joke here -- there were no shortage of folks who discussed the fuel this would add to the anti-GLBT fires here in Indiana.
Regardless of where you stand on the short-term and long-term implications this ruling will have on politics here in the Hoosier state, Rep. Eric Turner has once again stepped to the plate and taken a wild swing at the kind of wedge issue that has become the trademark of a Republican House caucus that seems more than happy every year to put important issues on the back-burner in order to have the same, tired debate over the evil (read: imagined) threat of activist judges.
This morning brings us more of the same out of the Journal Gazette:
This is why the fight to add the Defense of Marriage Amendment to the Indiana Constitution is worth the continued effort. We must turn to the constitution to reinforce the will of the people and protect it from relentless campaigns for social engineering.
What has appeared so logical for so long to so many - "marriage" means one woman and one man uniting for one lifetime - has been so aggressively threatened by political groups, special-interest groups and sympathetic activist judges that it is necessary to protect that idea in the constitution.
Yeah, we wouldn't want a government that is interested in telling folks how to live their lives, would we!
And am I the only one that couldn't help but laugh at the hilarity of the "one woman and one man uniting for one lifetime" quip? If that's the benchmark we're using, I'm pretty sure the divorce rate in this country makes it clear that the biggest problem in the man-woman dynamic has been the men and women involved.
The recent ruling out of California that asserted it is the right of all to enter into marriage sent rumblings across the country, and the aftershocks will likely be felt here in the Hoosier state for years to come. After a few fumbling years of failed attempts to shove an unnecessary (and dangerous) constitutional amendment down our throats, right-wing wacko Eric Miller and his ilk were handed a golden ticket from our friends on the left coast, and they will undoubted look to cash it in when the General Assembly reconvenes next year.
Dan Carpenter writes in the Star of this reawakening of the "Great Fear," and I think more or less hits the nail on the head with his assessment of how good in a far-away land could create some serious headaches for us here at home.
Now, however, the Great Fear has become available for whipping up again, and crusaders such as Miller, state Rep. Eric Turner and Rep. Brian Bosma are mounted and helmeted anew. The cannons of pious rhetoric and preposterous stereotypes are firing. The roaring rallies in opposition to unseen enemies who perpetrate domesticity are in our near future. The re-election campaigns have their visceral alternative to complex issues.
Darn those activist judges. What do they think they are, a branch of government?
Activist judges, of course, are judges who hand down rulings that one doesn't like. In political strategizing, the term serves the same function that "communist" did for Hoover, who applied it to opponents of racism, sexism, nuclear weapons and war. He was the quintessential witch-hunter, and his torch is being carried today by those who would exploit harmless, even healthful differences to gain power from paranoia.
IPOPA took a stab at this a week or so ago, and had very similar things to say.
(Bumped from the user diaries. I should have been promoting this more myself, but this last week was busy and I'm a forgetful guy. Be sure to check out the additional information below the fold if you're interested. - promoted by Thomas)
BrianK mentioned this in a comment here but I thought I'd provide a little more information.
The following information is from an email sent by the Human Rights Campaign on behalf of Indiana Equality and Stop The Amendment:
Lobbying Your Legislator 101 Training
Indiana Equality and Stop The Amendment, will be providing a two-hour crash course in techniques for constituents to successfully communicate with and educate their State legislators. Topics of this session will include:
* The "Marriage Discrimination Amendment"
* Bias Crimes Legislation
* Do's and Don'ts when talking to legislators
Indiana Equality's "Lobbying Your Legislator 101" Training
WHEN: Monday, February 18th from 9:30 - 11:30 AM
WHERE: Christ Church Cathedral, 125 Monument Circle, Indianapolis
RSVP by Sunday, February 17th at http://www.indianaequality.org...
In case there was any doubt, the Bill Ruthhart reports that Rep. Scott Pelath has officially pulled the plug on the hateful and legally ambiguous SJR-7:
A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages appears dead for this legislative session.
The amendment passed the Senate and was assigned to the House Rules committee, but its chairman, Scott Pelath, said he does not intend to give the bill a hearing. Pelath, D-Michigan City, said his committee voted against passing the amendment last year and didn't see any need to take up the issue again.
If Pelath's committee does not hear the measure, the effort to amend the constitution would have to start anew.
Hopefully this will make Eric Miller even more angry. So angry that he will run for Governor. Please?
Remember the Matt Kelty AFA anti-GLBT radio advertisement? At the time, it was one of the goofiest damn things I had ever heard. Well, we have a new leader in that category.
The American Family Association of Indiana is running this ridiculous thing in markets across the state, apparently with an eye toward convincing taxpayers that instead of having our legislators focus their full attention on the very real property tax problem, they should wade into the wedge-issue quagmire that this legally-ambiguous constitutional amendment represents.
SJR-7 doesn't enjoy the support of most Hoosiers. It doesn't enjoy the support of the Indiana business community. It doesn't enjoy the support of legal scholars. And most importantly for those out there who are generally opposed to same-sex marriage, there is a law already on the books that has been upheld by the courts.
But honestly, if the AFA wants to spend their money on radio spots as goddamn ridiculous as this, I almost find myself wanting more. I mean really, does it get much better than threatening to take away grandfathers!
Hoosiers don't want to talk about same-sex marriage right now. For once, the Indiana House seems to be actually focused on the one thing taxpayers want it to be focused upon. And yet, the right-wing fundamentalists just can't help themselves.
Nearly 8,000 Hoosiers have signed a petition demanding an Indiana House hearing on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, according to a news release Wednesday by the American Family Association of Indiana.
The group's executive director, Micah Clark, said he delivered the petition to the office of Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City.
As chairman of the powerful House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee, Pelath decided not to hear a House resolution that would have amended the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Clark's group is demanding that Pelath hear an identical amendment that passed the Senate earlier this session.
Every legislator should be thinking about the same question: Will my constituents be more upset if I don't pass property tax reform, or a same-sex marriage ban that already exists in state law?
The answer is simple, but it seems to be the easy stuff that groups like the AFA gloss over in their rush to insist upon themselves.
Sheila Suess Kennedy knocks another one out of the park with her column addressing the Indiana Senate's inability to leave the same-sex marriage amendment (SJR-7) alone in the midst of a short, cramped legislative session that should be focused squarely on the big issues facing Indiana taxpayers and voters.
And the so-called danger posed by same-sex relationships, folks, is not a pressing issue.
Basically, proponents say gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because some religions teach that homosexuality is immoral. (Of course, all religions teach that rape and murder are immoral, but Indiana allows rapists and murderers to marry. Go figure.)
They say marriage and sex are for procreation (although we allow sterile folks to marry).
Most of all, they insist that recognizing gay unions will undermine families and the institution of marriage. (Similar claims were made about interracial marriage, and about allowing women to own property and vote.)
Let's at least be honest. This isn't an effort to protect families; it is an effort to privilege some families at the expense of others. SJR 7 is not about religion or morality; it is about whose religion, whose morality.
This also is not about our senators responding to some groundswell of public opinion. This is an issue rapidly losing its salience with most voters, who are understandably more concerned about taxes, crime, access to health care and other bread-and-butter and quality-of-life issues. To the extent the Senate is responding to public pressure, it is pressure coming from a small but highly vocal constituency.
The shelf-life of this non-issue has always been maintained by the ability of Eric Miller to mobilize his socially-reactionary base on a whim, and if anything this should draw attention to the need for an organization that could provide this level of infrastructure and advocacy on our side of the issues. Whether a group such as that would be sustainable is certainly up for debate, but there can be no denying the fact that it would be really beneficial to have a more coherent way to combat this third-party wankery with something of our own creation.
The GOP-controlled Senate approved a proposal to amend Indiana's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but the effort was expected to die in the Democrat-led House.
Sen. Brandt Hershman, the resolution's sponsor, said Senate passage would give House members a chance to act on the measure if they choose. But a key House committee chairman has said he won't give the issue a hearing.
The Senate voted 39-9 in favor of the resolution Tuesday, with supporters saying the issue should be left to voters, not courts.
Blind pandering aside, the fact of the matter is that this issue has been left to the courts, and the courts have affirmed existing Indiana law at every turn.
But good luck telling a room full of Republicans in an election year anything about "facts" when their annual wedge issue votes come up.
First things first: If you haven't checked out the new Indiana Equality blog, I wholeheartedly recommend you give it a clickity-click or two. They've had some interesting stuff in their first few weeks, and I would expect things to only get better with time.
The reason I bring IE up is because they sent out an email alert this morning for interested parties following the legislative trials and tribulations of SJR-7 (same-sex marriage amendment) and HB 1076 (the "hate crimes" bill) as they move through the General Assembly.
On the SJR-7 front, the Republican caucus has proven once again that there's no time for wedge-issue wankery like the present, property tax problems be damned. Resurrected by the Senate GOP, the proposed constitutional amendment was passed out of committee and is heading toward a full vote before that body.
Luckily, the House Democrats appear unwilling to go down that divisive road, so in that regard I am hopeful that the Senate roll call will be the last breath this particular legislative abomination enjoys during the short session.
For HB 1076, the path is a bit more murky. Passed out of committee with bipartisan support, the bill is headed to the House floor with an uncertain future. Eric Miller and the rest of the half-truth gang have been churning out ridiculousness at a record pace, and Indiana Equality made note this morning of just a few of the more egregious errors being peddled in the hallowed halls of our government at the moment.
Mistruth: "This bill establishes a very dangerous precedent because it would create two classes of victims and punish someone more because of their thoughts." [Advance America]
Truth: The criminal justice system focuses on intent or motive all the time, particularly in sentencing. For example, the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter rests on whether the killer intended to kill, and whether it was premeditated.
Mistruths: "This bill sets up different standards for victims of crimes. For example, if a man walking out of a gay bar is mugged this would constitute a more severe crime than a grandmother who is mugged while walking down the street." [Advance America]
"This bill represents an attempt to give special protection to homosexuals and cross dressers by stating that a crime against them is to be treated with more severity than a crime against a senior citizen, a child or a pregnant mother." [Advance America]
Truth: Indiana law(IC 35-38-1-7.1) already provides a variety of sentencing enhancements for certain crimes, including crimes committed against persons less than 12 years of age or at least 65 years old.
For me, the key point which is being ignored about this bill by its opponents is that it doesn't mandate anything. It would create a new lane in the already utilized highway system of aggravating circumstances. It won't make any judge go down that path, but it does allow for the punishment of crimes -- not thoughts or church sermons, as Eric Miller would have you believe -- which are deemed by the court to be particularly damaging due to their targeted nature.
Copying and pasting this directly from the Indiana Equality email :
On Thursday, January 24th, at 8:45 AM the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee will hear testimony from opponents and proponents of the "Marrriage Discrimination Amendment" - Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR-7). The hearing most likely take place in the Senate Chambers the Indiana Statehouse.
Make Your Voice Heard! Ask members of the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee to vote NO on SJR-7.
Passage of SJR-7 by this committee will keep this harmful legislation in play and set the stage for a possible ballot initiative this year. If approved by the electorate, SJR-7 will forever write discrimination into the Indiana Constitution, affecting thousands of Hoosier families.
Please tell members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Marriage Discrimination Amendment is WRONG for Indiana. Make it clear to them that The Marriage Discrimination Amendment is just an attempt to distract Hoosiers from the greater issues at hand, such as fixing the broken property tax system.
Kudos to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette for standing up and counting themselves among those who are willing to look past petty political pandering and acknowledge the immediate (and long-term) legislative needs of this state. In other words, they recognize that SJR-7 is unnecessary at best, and more than possibly dangerously damaging to Indiana.
There is no reason for it to pass this year or any year. Indiana has a law that prohibits same-sex marriage. The language of the proposed amendment is murky at best and would create more legal questions than it would answer.
Meanwhile, other states are quietly going the opposite direction from Indiana. Instead of adopting measures that take rights away from citizens, they are expanding rights. In 2007, New Hampshire joined Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey in offering civil unions. And Washington State and Oregon approved domestic-partnership laws to ensure legal rights for same-sex couples. Maine, California and Hawaii already have such laws.
Colorado, Iowa, Oregon and Vermont all banned workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, bringing to 12 the number of states with such anti-discrimination laws on the books. Nearly half of the U.S. population now resides in states that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to Stateline.org, an authoritative Web site that reports involving issues with state governments across the nation.
It is foolish for Indiana, still lagging other states in economic recovery, to consider a measure that would alienate any potential investor. It's even more foolish to consider such a measure when elected officials should be focused on tax restructuring.
This is more than a civil rights issue, it is an economic issue. This is more than an economic issue, it is a civil rights issue. But more than anything, it's a waste of time during a short legislative session where every ounce of energy needs to be dedicated to fixing a broken property tax system.
Too bad the Governor isn't willing to take a stand on this issue. (Other than saying he supports SJR-7, of course, which he notes every two months or so to keep his right-wing wacko base from wandering off after three years of largely being ignored.)
A recent Indianapolis Star poll showed diminishing support for SJR-7, the same-sex marriage ban that even anti-GLBT legislators couldn't bring themselves to pass last year after its troublesome language was deemed dangerous to existing domestic violence laws. Almost every newspaper in the state opined against the amendment, with most taking the stance that it was bad for the Indiana economy at a time when every single new job counts. But honestly, if you want to know why Republicans would be insane to bring up SJR-7 in this session, just do a little experiment.
Next time you see some neighbors out, go ask them the following question: "What percentage of time would you like the General Assembly to spend concentrating on the property tax problem during the next legislative session?"
Something tells me that most -- even those who vehemently oppose any and all GLBT issues -- would find themselves instinctively citing a figure approaching 100%. I'm willing to wager that there aren't many who are going to tell you that they hope the General Assembly can just find the time to look at property taxes after taking care of that pesky already-illegal-yet-somehow-controversial gay marriage issue. In fact, outside of the Eric Miller nut parade, I really don't think there would be very many at all.
The Indianapolis Star takes a look at the current status of SJR-7, and finds no shortage of GOP legislators who are ready to waste taxpayer time and money with another year of divisive wankery. The question is whether the voters are willing to put up with another session of nonsense in the name of "family values" while across the state real families are having trouble making ends meet with high property tax bills, skyrocketing education costs, and a healthcare system that is broken. Oh, and not one of them has lost a penny to gay marriage.
That means Rep. P. Eric Turner, R-Marion, will be charged with pushing the measure first -- a job that he said he's willing to tackle.
"I think Senator Hershman is probably tired of starting it and seeing it die in the House at the hands of the speaker," Turner said. "I'm certainly willing to start something in the House."
Miller, one of the state's most prominent lobbyists and a key supporter of the amendment, said he would encourage both the House and Senate to consider the amendment simultaneously.
But Walter Botich, the legislative chair for Indiana Equality, a gay rights advocacy organization, said lawmakers have more urgent issues, namely a property-tax crisis, to sort out. His group opposes the amendment.
"We have more pressing issues to deal with this session, and property taxes are on everyone's minds," Botich said. "The issue no longer seems as important to most, I think."
For those who missed out on this story a week or so ago, you can get some background over at Trifles from Anderson, Indiana. The general storyline revolves around Rep. Terri Austin and a ridiculous billboard that was put up on the side of the former Madison County GOP headquarters, decrying her vote earlier this year against the equally ridiculous constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The controversial sign was paid for by the Mississippi-based American Family Association, and has since been replaced by (of all things) a Mike Pence advertisement. The Herald Bulletin opined over the weekend on the whole ordeal.
[Indiana AFA crusader Micah] Clark told The Herald Bulletin that the AFA is against same-sex marriage because it denies a child the benefits of a two-gender family. This is a national political stance by the AFA to sway voters away from candidates with whom they disagree.
But the AFA doesn't know Austin or her constituents and to whitewash Austin with a sweeping, and false, generality doesn't add to the political dialogue but seeks to shut that dialogue down.
Austin has spoken of being against same-sex marriage, which she stated last spring. Her concern was for the potential to skirt domestic violence laws and how employers could use the law in providing insurance to unmarried couples.
The AFA doesn't care about any of this. It has one narrow message to get out, and this time it's about Austin. We're glad the billboard has been taken down. Politics is a complicated process, and the speech that accompanies it should be an accurate reflection of the issues, not some knee-jerk reaction to a specialized agenda.
If anything, the attack seems to have backfired on the right-wing nuts: Rep. Austin says has she received an outpouring of support since the sign made an appearance.
Popular local radio host Abdul Hakim-Shabazz is an Indiana political pundit who tends to lean Republican. While I'm a regular guest on his show (I'll be appearing again later this week to talk about Indiana's marriage amendment), prominent Republican politicians guest host his program when he's on vacation.
On this slow news day, I just wanted to put up a quick reminder that Bil Browning has posted the second part of his series that examines where the debate over SJR-7 stands as we prepare for next year's legislative session. For those who missed the fireworks earlier this year, SJR-7 is the legislative moniker for a proposed constitutional amendment that seeks to write into our state's highest legal document not just a ban on same-sex marriage, but also a vague and ambiguous restriction on the granting of marriage benefits on non-married couples.
Governor Daniels has come under criticism by evangelicals for sending a welcome letter to Indy Pride and not actively supporting the amendment. During his administration he has stayed unusually silent on the issue, instead referring reporters to legislators.
After one right-winger e-mail attack when he was quoted in the Indianapolis Star as saying Indiana didn't have "the luxury of division," Daniels sent out his own return e-mail telling the fundies he was misquoted and how much he supported "traditional marriage."
The Governor has two ways to handle this. He can choose to pander to conservatives by supporting SJR-7 and cutting Eric Miller off at the knees with the church crowd. Or he can stand firm with other moderate Republicans more interested in making money than marriage and defend his stance beside big business.
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette echoes what many of us have been saying about Brian Bosma for a while now: He doesn't care about fixing property taxes as much as he cares about attempting to ride his rapidly dwindling stable of wedge issues to some sort of electoral success.
Remember this story about Brian Bosma and SJR-7 from this last Sunday's Indianapolis Star?
House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, wanted to be perfectly clear Tuesday as the Indiana General Assembly held its session-beginning Organization Day.
Property taxes, he said, were the No. 1 issue. After property tax reform and the related issue of local government reform, he said, "there's a short list of additional issues. But I have to tell you that those two are so overwhelmingly at the front of the list, that the rest are almost footnotes."
[...]
Bosma was then asked how he'd feel if House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, decided there was no time to debate a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in this short legislative session, which resumes Jan. 8 and must end by March 14.
"There's plenty of time to deal with all of the issues that are before us in the General Assembly," Bosma said. "If someone says there's not enough time to deal with an issue, I think that may be more of an excuse than the reality."
In response, the Journal Gazette makes it clear just how bad of an idea wasting our time with this crap (again) would be, especially in light of this year's municipal elections -- and the recent Star-WTHR polling -- which made incredibly clear the frustration that most voters are feeling:
The reality is that if lawmakers hadn't wasted time in previous sessions arguing over issues like same-sex marriage, they might have already solved the property tax problem.
To recap: Indiana already has a law on the books banning same-sex marriage. The tiresome debate at the Statehouse is over the question of amending the state constitution to ban recognition of any "legal incidents" of marriage to any unmarried couples.
[...]
If any lawmakers other than Bosma are inclined to revisit the issue, they should consider the results of a recent Indianapolis Star poll that showed declining support for amending the constitution to enshrine a law that already is on the books. In March 2005, 56 percent of Hoosiers supported the amendment; this month the percentage had fallen to 49 percent.
Amen.
And furthermore, where is the Governor on this issue? He's the supposed leader of the state's GOP operations, so I consider any silence on his end to be a tacit endorsement of Bosma and his fringe agenda.
I'm usually not inclined to give free advice to Brian Bosma, but let me throw him this bone out of the kindness in my heart: No matter how much you are creeped out by the thought of two people of the same sex loving one another, the much bigger concern for Hoosier taxpayers right now is the property tax problem.
Of course, odds are he won't listen to me, because this morning's Star reveals that he thinks there will be plenty of time to put SJR-7 back on the table.
House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, wanted to be perfectly clear Tuesday as the Indiana General Assembly held its session-beginning Organization Day.
Property taxes, he said, were the No. 1 issue. After property tax reform and the related issue of local government reform, he said, "there's a short list of additional issues. But I have to tell you that those two are so overwhelmingly at the front of the list, that the rest are almost footnotes."
[...]
Bosma was then asked how he'd feel if House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, decided there was no time to debate a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in this short legislative session, which resumes Jan. 8 and must end by March 14.
"There's plenty of time to deal with all of the issues that are before us in the General Assembly," Bosma said. "If someone says there's not enough time to deal with an issue, I think that may be more of an excuse than the reality."
Gov. Daniels has to give his socially conservative base something to play with soon, or he will risk the wrath of that segment of the party faithful he has successfully ignored for the last three years. Will he sit idly by and let this non-issue take up our precious time during this short legislative session?
So if there existed any remaining doubt that the hardcore right-wing wankery that surrounded the "gay marriage" amendment (SJR-7) this last year will make another appearance in 2008, this website should put an end to that:
Same sex marriage.
Some call it the civil rights fight of our generation.
We call it an unGodly attempt to overcome our Judeo-Christian heritage and a God-given Truth...marriage is between one man and one woman.
A vast majority of states have already responded to the national homosexual political agenda by either passing laws or changing their constitutions to say that marriage will remain between a man and a woman.
Indiana is exposed. Indiana does currently have a law on the books that says that marriage will be between a man and a woman. So why does Indiana need SJR 7, a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage?
Of course, that is a rather good question, which they do a rather terrible job of answering. More importantly, their constant blabbering about "Godly Truths" reminds me of something. Now what could that be...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Ah yes, that is from Leon Bazile's original ruling in the Loving v. Virgina case, which upheld a state ban on interracial marriage.
Hate is hate, no matter what the circumstance or time period, but what is sad is the severity of this country's historical amnesia when it comes to their own past transgressions.
More importantly, for every tax protester who is out on the streets right now, clamoring and calling for the heads of their government, please remember your anger when the General Assembly gavels in next January. The minute that Sen. Hershman or some other supposed servant of the people comes forward with something related to gay marriage, or some similarly ridiculous wedge issue, I sincerely hope we will see protests outside of their office with a genuine call for the precious time of the people to not be wasted during such a short legislative session.
The website says this toward the end of their multi-colored rant:
Don’t let activist judges usher in gay marriage in Indiana. And don’t let the House of Representatives get in your way.
I would argue the following: Don't let out-of-state activists waste any more of our time or money while the real problems of the state go unsolved. And don't let the divisive rhetorical tricks they play get in your way.
History has been made, folks! SJR-7, the proposed amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions, has been defeated in committee. The amendment is dead.
The committee deadlocked in a 5-5 vote. (All democrats except for Rep Dennis Oxley voted against the amendment.) No amendments were offered to strike the extremely damaging Part B which forced the committee to vote on the merits of the entire amendment.
Dan Parker, Indiana Democratic Party chairman, commented after the hearing, "House Democrats took a stand today against ill-crafted legislation that would have done more harm than good. This wasn't a vote against traditional marriage; it was a vote for protecting vulnerable Hoosiers and promoting job growth. At a time when Indiana is bleeding thousands of jobs each month, the last thing we need to do is restrict our major employers and send the wrong message to companies and workers that might be looking to move here."
None of this would have been possible without the courageous stand taken by Indiana companies like Cummins Engine, Wellpoint, Dow AgroSciences, Eli Lilly, and Emmis Communications. These corporations correctly pointed out that SJR-7 would negatively affect their ability to recruit quality employees by painting Indiana as an intolerant state to live and work in.
Domestic violence advocate Kerry Blomquist also played an extremely important role by pointing out the serious dangers posed to unmarried victims of domestic violence. Her testimony was extremely powerful to committee members who feared Indiana would become another Ohio and be forced to let domestic violence offenders out of jail.
And of course, none of this would have been possible without the work of countless individuals and organizations who have worked tirelessly both behind the scenes and in public to convince legislators of the damage the amendment would cause.
Congratulations, folks. We all deserve credit for this one. It honestly takes a community to pull something like this off. Indiana has come a long way in terms of LGBT organizing (and has a long way to go!) but it's awfully sweet to taste victory again.
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
I'm usually not inclined to give free advice to Brian Bosma, but let me throw him this bone out of the kindness in my heart: No matter how much you are creeped out by the thought of two people of the same sex loving one another, the much bigger concern for Hoosier taxpayers right now is the property tax problem.
