Twitter is abuzz with the news that Speaker Bosma will move HJR 6 / 3 and its “partner” HB 1153 from the House Judiciary Committee to the House Elections Committee. This is a very unusual move for a bill that the Speaker claimed was not a priority. It is not unheard of for legislation to be moved to a more favorable panel if it is dying in another committee. But, certainly, this extra effort shows that the bill is of more importance to the Speaker than he had let on earlier. It also suggests that the bill did not have the votes to make it out of the judiciary committee.
The members of the House Elections committee are, on the Republican side: Reps. Smith (chair), Richardson (vice-chair), Rep. Woody Burton, Rep. Casey Cox, Rep. Hamm, Soliday, Sullivan, Thompson, and Wesco; and, on the Democratic side: Reps. Bartlett (ranking minority member), Battles, GiaQuinta, and Goodin. Per Eric Berman, the committee will hear another round of testimony tomorrow (January, 22, 2014 – time to be determined at 3:30 p.m. in the House Chambers.)
This thing is like a sick dog. It’s the wrong thing to do. Even for those who disagree on the morality of voting for this resolution, the fairly straight forward first sentence is redundant because of existing state law. The second sentence is impenetrable and ill-advised. HB 1153 the “explanatory” companion legislation acknowledges the problems with the proposed constitutional language but raises more questions than it answers.
The Speaker should have let the resolution die a merciful death in committee.
Update Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has coverage of the development.
[Speaker Bosma] said he struggled with the decision over the weekend but had heard from a majority of the House Republican caucus – for and against the measure – that they wanted to vote on the bill on the House floor.
Bosma made a veiled reference to shadiness regarding the Judiciary Committee but would not embellish.
“I’m actually more concerned about the path by which the bill appeared to be being questionable in committee. It was a hard left turn that came kind of out of the blue,” he said. “I decided this was the right course to protect the institution.”
Shadiness in the Judiciary Committee? Now, I’m really curious.
It’s probably no coincidence the vice chair of this committee also is the House Republican caucus chair — who I’m sure assured Bosma she has the votes to get this through. Looking at the 9-4 Republican roster, there are a lot of Bible bangers.
My take on this – the Speaker thought he’d have no trouble in Judiciary – and then they wanted to amend, but he wouldn’t let them. He lost too many votes and shopped around to find a committee where it was lead-pipe cinch. This committee has two Ds on it who voted YES in 2011, and I believe they have both stated they’d vote for it again. It will pass with only 2-3 votes against it and no amendments. The vote in the House will probably take place on Thursday – for 2nd reading amendments. The Governor is headlining a Luncheon for the rightwing Indiana Family Institute next door at the Westin — imagine those good church folk pouring into the statehouse to rally in favor of passage. I don’t think the state police will allow the torches and pitchforks, but they might as well. (The luncheon was free, but you had to register with your pastor’s name and church information!!!)
Same here.
The thing will get passed, there’s a reason both sides are saving their money for wall-to-wall ads come November.
My question is – what impact will it have, if any, on primary races in May? Are these business influences going to back some candidates more to their liking? That’s what would be interesting to watch, especially since a lot of districts are so gerrymandered that the true race for office isn’t in November.
Why of course. They actually thought for themselves and we’re going to vote it down narrowly. We can’t have that kind of crap, you know. What are committees besides the extension of the speaker’s p… Power? And of course, he had a drone of the unholy Trinity of Righteousness (Miller, Smith and Clark) making the Rightwing fundies in the House go nuts all weekend. It also serves Brian’s interest to drive the right to the polls this fall, assuming that the opposition can’t match that effort.
If this goes to the general public, turnout will be huge. Polls can be misleading, but folks who know have led me to believe that general public against this amendment is HUGE. This could be bad news for the GOP (not as bad as losing all control – because, I mean, it’s Indiana, but bad).
I’d like to see them continue to change the resolution number, forcing the libs to have to keep printing new signs. As a bonus, thieves get a good indicator which homes are unlikely to be armed whenever they see one of those now HJR3 signs in a lawn.
I’m not armed. But I have a very, very large dog who is extremely protective of me.
Dogs are great, though your dog looks like a sweetheart. Get a shotgun.
There will never be a gun in my home, unless it comes in on an officer. My dog is sweet. To me. He gets a little antsy when people come too close. He doesn’t even like Doug being close to me. He’s got my back. I wouldn’t try anything here.
Unless the perp shoots the dog, first. That took me less than a second to solve, and I’m a “nice guy.” The bad guys move in far more sinister ways than anything that occurs to me. Have a backup plan.
Dude, if any asshole shoots my dog, a gun is not going to protect them from me.
I wouldn’t want to try to cross Amy, dude.
Freedom, you don’t really have an argument to make, right? have you ever thought about the people behind the situation — I mean, besides yourself?
I have made my argument. I’m not going to repeat it every time someone posts an update on the issue. I support HJR3. I don’t support those who oppose it. I laughed when I saw they had to print new signs.
Of course, I have thought of those affected by HJR3. Given my posting history and the sterling quality of my insight, you should by now be aware that I think about everything prior to commenting.
I simply fail to see how HJR3 inhibits a right. I don’t see a right to be gay married. I see a right to have sexual relations with other consenting adults. HJR3 does not infringe that. I see a right to cohabitate with whomever you want. HJR3 does not infringe that. I see a right for persons to leave their possessions to whomever they want. HJR3 does not infringe that. I simply don’t see where HJR3 inhibits a right. I see a right for persons to have sacred ceremonies commemorating love unions. HJR3 does not infringe that. I also don’t see any logical proof that gay marriage is ontologically equivalent to marriage.
I do see where HJR3 preserves the rights of the larger population against a range of evils that sit right across the other side of gay marriage and are waiting to attack.
Indiana’s gay marriage laws stand in the same rank as choosing a design for the state flag, simply a discretionary choice left wholly to the legislature.
It infringes on the rights of businesses to recognize arrangements alternate to marriage if they find it to their advantage to do so, putting them at what they feel is a disadvantage. (No, I don’t think HB1153 will stand up.)
That the Republicans claim “jobs!” is what they’re about this session, it’s rather humorous to watch them push through a resolution that’s opposed by some of the largest companies in the state.
Because, obviously, legislators know what’s good for business.
What the Republicans should do, if they feel on proceeding, is drop the second sentence and start over. If the people are behind them, what’s the harm?
I don’t follow this at all. If HJR3 is not passed, which rights of the majority are diminished or eliminated?
The right of a group to claim something as theirs, only theirs, and feel special. It’s the same instincts that drive country clubs, fraternities and sororities, and hipster bars. And straight, white males — especially those who don’t have a lot of money — are on to these kinds of arguments because even if they don’t have jack, at least being a straight, white male MEANT something.
Doug, Fix your gaze on the correct range marker. HJR3 is necessary to keep gay marriage from being legal. What lies beyond gay marriage is terrifying.
Joe, companies can pay money to whomever they want, whenever they want. HJR3 does not prevent voluntary payments. Companies only oppose HJR3 because they’re required to issue such positions because of pressure from gays and other lefties. 99% of people in companies don’t care, at all, about legalizing gay marriage. When gay marriage is made illegal, companies breathe a sigh of relief.
Exhoosier, even in places where gay marriage is legal, it’s not real marriage. A gay couple will never be husband and wife. Without a husband and a wife, there’s no marriage. A man isn’t married unless he has a wife, and a woman isn’t married unless she has a husband. A man can’t be a wife, and a woman can’t be a husband. ‘Husband’ and ‘wife’ are strict gender roles that are impervious to redefinition. Instead of using the term ‘marriage,’ we may simply discard it and ask men the more precise question: “Do you have a wife?” The answer of “No, but I am married” will never, ever, go over well or have the same ring.
Look for restaurants and events to substitute “husband and wife” in place of “married couples.”
Sorry, Ex, straight folks have perpetual superior marital status locked up.
“When gay marriage is made illegal, companies breathe a sigh of relief.”
So the officials testifying against HJR3 are lying in testimony before the government? That seems like poor form.
You asked for rights being taken away, I gave you examples, you said “well, they REALLY don’t feel that way.”
Again, truthiness.
Joe, What right is HJR3 denying?
Businesses the right to offer benefits as they see fit.
The way to “save” marriage, if you think it should be “saved”, is to remove it from our laws. Government should have no place in marriage. The government should issue civil unions to any two consenting adults and should go no further. That’s what our laws should refer to.
Marriage should be a religious ceremony, as performed according to the rites/rituals of a respective religion. If any two people want to call themselves married regardless of gender, knock yourself out – but it should have no meaning to the government unless you’ve also gotten a civil union document. As long as you’re not forcing my religion to equate what we consider “marriage” with what you consider “marriage”, it’s fine with me.
Government and religion, separate. The way the Founders intended.
How does HJR3 stop a business from paying anyone it wants?
I didn’t say “pay”. Maybe you could pay attention?
If HJR3 didn’t affect benefits, HB1153 would not exist.
Joe:
Get off the straw man. HJR3 is anchored in secular scholarship, not religion. Every time you claim HJR3 is dismissible because it’s of a religious nature, you only make your position look hysterical and weak.
You mean the secular scholarship you couldn’t produce nine days ago?
You, sir, are a certain kind of determined when you decide to lose the same argument … the same way … twice.
Unless you found the studies, the secular scholarship, to support your position in the last nine days.
I am beginning to understand why you post anonymously.
Come on, Joe. Be a man.
3-0, bud. Maybe next time?
Joe, Is this your first time being exposed to a real argument? You don’t seem to understand how it works. When you’re cornered, when your argument doesn’t hold, I’ve won the point, not you.
If you were keeping score, the Colts would have beaten the Patriots.
Hey, I’m not the one who said HJR3 was based on secular scholarship that can’t be produced. The best you can post is an opinion piece published to the MIT student newspaper? Yer Google broke?
I’m not the one who said that businesses liked HJR3 despite two of the biggest in the state testifying against it.
I’m not the one who asked what rights HJR3 took away, and, when produced with the right of companies to offer benefits to same-sex couples, changed the argument. Because there is a bill before the Indiana House that says, in part, HJR-3 can’t be used to take away benefits. Since, you know, they’ve had lawyers ON THEIR SIDE read the thing who told them they had to introduce the bill in an attempt to not take that right away from businesses. Because, otherwise, they wouldn’t have introduced the bill to muddy the waters.
3-0 in more ways that one.
I like facts, you like truthiness.
Doug, are you saying that gay people have a right to legal recognition of homosexual unions?
You said that HJR 3 preserves the rights of the majority. I was asking you to identify the right or rights that would be diminished or eliminated in the absence of HJR 3. You have not.
If there were no civil recognition of heterosexual unions, I would say that gays would not have any special right to such recognition. It’s an equal protection claim. Unless there is a rational basis for granting certain rights and privileges to heterosexual couples and not granting those same rights and privileges to gay couples, then it’s an equal protection violation. Opponents of marriage equality have had a great deal of trouble articulating that rational basis.
Blah, blah, blah, Doug. You didn’t answer the question. Again “Are you saying that gay people have a right to legal recognition of homosexual unions?”
“If there were no civil recognition of heterosexual unions, I would say that gays would not have any special right to such recognition.”
Irrelevant. Further, there is no recognition of “heterosexual unions.” Marriages are legally recognized. There are lots of heterosexual unions around your nearby campus that have no legal recognition.
“It’s an equal protection claim.”
That’s not a rights argument.
“Unless there is a rational basis for granting certain rights and privileges to heterosexual couples and not granting those same rights and privileges to gay couples, then it’s an equal protection violation.”
That’s not a rights argument.
“Opponents of marriage equality have had a great deal of trouble articulating that rational basis.”
Irrelevant. There is no such thing as “rational basis.” That’s a silly legal phrase accepted nowhere within rights literature.
“Opponents of marriage equality have had a great deal of trouble articulating that rational basis.”
Let’s turn this around:
Proponents of homosexual marriage have had a great deal of trouble articulating that homosexual pairings are ontologically identical to heterosexual marriages.
Unless you can show me a rights justification for gay marriage, I’m unmoved.
Still no indication of what majority rights will be diminished or eliminated if HJR 3 is not passed.
Also, I’m not much concerned if you are moved or unmoved.
Because you have little desire to engage in a philosophical discussion. For you, this is doctrinal and pandering to the base.
Still no indication from you what right HJR3 limits.
Doug:
Here’s an interesting paper:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1082190/posts
I like the ending:
You’re relying on freeper research? Classic.
Let me get this Straight, “Freedom”. You mean that a gay couple can’t have natural children, so therefore they can never be a real marriage. (By the way, i don’t give a damn what you call it and no church has to recognize anything, just grant the same benefits to couples.) But to your point, then every childless couple is not married. Every couple who are passed child bearing age is unmarried. And what would you do with single parents?
“You mean that a gay couple can’t have natural children, so therefore they can never be a real marriage.”
That’s one of many reasons, certainly not the only one. Further, you haven’t correctly stated the reason. You should proceed from this premise: Homosexual marriage is of the type and character that cannot produce children to a mother and a father.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Why are such unions legally recognized? Among other reasons, because such unions have the tendency to produce new members of the state and to raise these new members under the guidance and supervision of a mother and a father.
Now, what is it you want to argue?
“But to your point, then every childless couple is not married.”
Shallow objection. All childless marriages don’t stay that way, and barrenness is not new. Even childless marriages are of the type and manner that can produce children to a mother and a father. Childless marriages are not hostile to marriages with issue, and proscribing childless marriages may deter persons from entering into marriage.
“Every couple who are passed child bearing age is unmarried.”
In some sense, elderly marriages do ride on the coattails of younger marriages, but not all elderly marriages remain childless, and all children are entitled to the longest possible benefit of a married mother and father. Again, elderly marriages are not hostile to younger marriages.
“And what would you do with single parents?”
There is nothing within the concept of “single parent” that suggests or implies “marriage,” is there?
That which you must recognize is that marriage is more than mere sexual love.
So your contention is that two lesbians, regardless of how they became parents or are rearing children, cannot and should not receive any of the benefits regularly granted to those raising children “in the name of the state”?
My contention is that two lesbians can’t be married.
No, they can marry, they just wouldn’t be allowed to if you ran the state.