Rep. Eric Turner has introduced HJR 3 which is this session’s iteration of HJR 6; the proposed Constitutional amendment precluding marriage equality. It would amend the Indiana constitution to provide:
Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
I am not sure if any decision has been made on the timing for hearing this bill. There was some talk that it would either be heard immediately; in an effort to rip the bandage off quickly or, alternatively, after the February 7, 2014, deadline for primary challengers to file as candidates. (Edited to add: Guess they are going to do the former — House Judiciary Hearing on Monday, January 13).
Update The Indiana Law Blog pointed out that HB 1153, also introduced by Rep. Turner, is intended as sort of a companion to the Constitutional Amendment. It purports to establish legislative intent for the amendment and purports to establish interpretations for the amendment, such as:
[T]he marriage amendment does not prohibit or restrict in any way:
(1) the extension of employment benefits by private sector employers, political subdivisions of the state, or state educational institutions to any beneficiary designated by an employed individual;
(2) the adoption and enforcement of local ordinances granting to any category or class of persons equal opportunities for education, employment, access to public conveniences, access to accommodations, or acquisition of property or to rent property;
(3) an individual from entering into or enforcing terms of a power of attorney, a will, a trust, or another similar lawful agreement or instrument (regardless of name) established for the benefit of another person;
(4) an individual from giving or enforcing a lawful consent or other instrument (regardless of name) that grants powers, rights, or privileges to, imposes obligations on, or provides for the use by or transfer of property to another person;
(5) the protections provided under Indiana’s domestic violence laws or who may qualify for protection from domestic violence; or
(6) action by the general assembly to protect or provide for the property, health, or safety of unmarried persons by appropriate legislation.
This is just backward. The General Assembly does not get to say what the Constitution does or does not do. The Constitution gets to say what the General Assembly can or cannot do. Furthermore, the General Assembly’s intent is not the only relevant consideration. A Constitutional Amendment is also passed by the voters. Perhaps their intent is different than that of the General Assembly? If the intent of the voters is different than that of the General Assembly’s, whose intent governs? Also worth keeping in mind, the next General Assembly could just come along and repeal this law while the Constitution would continue to contain the language of HJR 6/3.
If proponents of the resolution want all of this clarification; I think they need to put the relevant language into the proposed amendment. And, really, if you need that level of particularity to achieve your desired goals; the policy is probably better suited for a statute than the Constitution.
Maybe halving the number is an admission by Representative Turner and his colleagues that it’s been a half-assed proposal all along. Speaker Brian Bosma is on record as saying the second sentence ought to to, which would lighten it by 50%. But then it would half to start all over again.
This is excellent! I was just wondering what to do with the 10000 “3” stickers I got for Christmas. Looks like there is a market out there now!
Indiana Republicans: Jobs are our No. 1 priority!
Large companies and colleges: This gay-marriage ban is going to kill job growth because it’ll cement Indiana’s image as a place for the hateful and uneducated.
Indiana Republicans: Jobs are our No. 1 priority!
Large companies and colleges: No, seriously, dudes. We hear it from job candidates and young people who come in from out of state to go to school, but leave as soon as they graduate. Just leave it alone.
Indiana Republicans: Jobs are our No. 1 priority!
Large companies and colleges: Really, do you listen to yourselves talk?
Indiana Republicans: Jobs are our No. 1 priority!
Large companies and colleges: So, Cummins, when will you be relocating to Chicago?
I love this. It is a fantastic bit, and I’m going to gank it to post of FB. Thank you.
The Republicans know no level they won’t stoop to in order to prove what scum they are.
A growing number of Republicans oppose this legislation also.
Agreed – let’s not trash-talk all Republicans. Let’s blame the specific anti-gay nuts who have been driving this legislation for decades. They are an (unfortunately influential) handful of people.
Actually, we can trash-talk Republicans because only one — in the House and Senate combined — voted against HJR 6 the first time around. This was clearly a very important thing for the party (and, presumably, its constituents), and they were clearly very comfortable with the idea of marginalizing a population through the state constitution.
The religion some of them have found since that vote has been honestly felt, certainly in some cases (like the guy in Shelbyville whose kids worked on him). But some are backing off because they’re feeling the screws from their big-money donors telling them to back off — not that they suddenly decided, yep, it’s Adam and Steve, too. In some way, I don’t care why the Republicans change their vote, as long as they change it. But it’s been clear since the Republicans got their supermajority that they, like Rahm Emanuel, are not going to let an opportunity go to waste, that they will try to ensure they get a radically conservative agenda through (for their donors, if nothing else) and find ways to hold off demographic changes that will work against them in order to ensure their legacy lives on, even if they and their party don’t.
So Republicans, screw you for bringing this up. And it would be delicious irony if your insistence on pushing this awakened a nascent pro-marriage equality movement in Indiana, one that note only beats back HJR-6, but because of that effort now has the funding, will and energy to fight the state’s existing anti-marriage equality laws, whether through the legislature or the courts.
HJR-6 is a good and needed idea, and nobody decides to move a corporation, or not, because of laws that favor a small group of people with a social-development disability.
WHY is it needed? Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage for 10 years now and there has been no societal damage there.
Now now.. We all know that every state that passes marriage equality blows up within one year of that vote or decision… Whee have you been hiding. *snark*
You’re kidding? The place is a disaster.
You are a moron. You know who has a developmental disability? You! Sadly, there’s no cure for what you have, Freedom. I feel sorry for you.
As much as he’s impressed with himself, it’s amazing he doesn’t believe in what he says enough to put his name behind it.
The whole thing is akin to passing Jim Crow laws in 1959. I expect the conflict between businesses and social conservatives … will mean the Republican Party faces the same fate as that of the Whig Party in my lifetime.
No, Joe, a person can’t change or choose their race.
Please have the decency not to cheapen the Civil Rights movement by having unworthy causes cling to its coattails.
Amy, why would I want to be “cured”? I’m plenty happy snuggling up to a woman.
That’s not the disability I was referring to, Freedom.
Do you truly “feel sorry” for people who don’t want to legalize gay “marriage”? Truly?
How bizarre your world must be?
Nope, not sorry for people who don’t want to legalize gay marriage. Just sorry for you. YOU only. Because being you must be awful.
And you have that right – and people who are created differently, deserve that same right. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that sexual orientation is a God-given trait, not something people choose. Beyond that, this is not a theocracy and therefore your religious rules should not trump the Constitution.
H-One, that’s just it. I don’t believe homosexuals are created, at least not all or most of them. I believe homosexuality is a defensive mechanism the individual employs, and I believe the DSM-II had it right.
Apparently, the new trend on the Internet is to name yourself after things you hate.
For the record, I was not aware of that when I chose “steelydanfan.”
Freedom,
You have issues even if you take the stance that being gay is a choice. Religious belief is a choice. You choose to be Christian, or Muslim, or whatever. Is the state free to adopt a law that says Christians are banned from getting married? Certainly not.
I still haven’t heard a reason as to “why” the state should ban gay marriage. Who is harmed? Who has their rights violated by someone else getting married?
If they remove religious objection as a reason, then they’re left with two things…
1) Procreation – but that has all kinds of holes – what do we do to married un-childed pairs or elderly couples or single parents?
2) Icky factor – well, there you have it… they find “those people” icky and therefore they shouldn’t have to deal with them. In fact, “they” shouldn’t exist… see where this takes you?
Chris, if gay “marriage” is legal, would it ever be the case that homosexual couples could press a civil rights claim to having equal representation in depictions in public education materials?
If you need that much explanation to clarify what you mean, your Constitutional Amendment is super weak.
Wait — HB 1153 sounds like it’s creating civil unions that are Not Civil Unions. So, Rep. Turner, do you want to ban this or not?
Has anyone ever heard of a proposed constitutional amendment that needed explanatory legislation before it even became an amendment? And wouldn’t the amendment, if passed by the voters, override HB 1153 anyway?
That’s precisely my point… HJR 3 would overrule HB1153.
They should name HB 1153 the – I don’t want you to think I’m trying to be a bigot, but, Bill…
I find it ironic that they can go through the trouble of creating this “clarification” statute, but they can’t provide a single reasonable explaination as to why gay marriages harm straight marriages.
And as a response to Steph Mineart above, this IS the group of conservatives that controls the Republican Party. Social conservative leaders and their voters have dictated the party’s policy stances for sometime. If the rest of the GOP doesn’t want to get lumped in with these hardliners, then they should look at putting the social conservatives in their place.
And my auto correct misspells “explanation”. Hmmm
It’s not just social conservatives who oppose gay marriage.
Ok, Freedom, I challenge you to give your reasons against marriage equality – besides religious objections.
HoosierOne,
Yer Google broke?
Freedom,
You have been on Masson’s Blog long enough to understand that it is a place for rational discourse… I think HoosierOne asks a valid question. What *are* your reasons against marriage equality – yours specifically.
Yer Google broke?
Translation – “no reason.”
Also translated: “I like trolling.”
Can’t bring yourself to do your own copy/paste, huh?
Students are expected to do their own homework and research.
Translation – “no reason”.
Rugged self-reliance, indeed.
Jeez, Doug, you can’t even run Google on your own site?
Lame.
Poor Freedom – you do know how to type your own reasons, don’t you?
Or are you unable to articulate the precise language to explain why you think some people deserve to be treated differently than others? If you support something, I’d think you’d have a reason.
But I guess you’re just blindly following the cult leaders – Eric Miller, Micah Clark, Curt Smith, et.al.?
Or maybe the reason is that you don’t have a reason that would sound plausible or convince others, so you just throw it back in our laps as “’cause I said so.”
I’m not going to post them again when they are already within the literature of this volume. Your task is merely a harassment.
Yes, it’s also the intellectually dishonest conservatives.
“Get the government out of my business, but it needs to stay in your business because I don’t agree with it based on my biases and beliefs”.
Freedom, indeed.
Government should have no involvement in marriage. If you want to save your idea of marriage, get it out of the constitution. Leave the legal equivalent and call it a civil union, and allow any two people to get it. Let each church have its own idea of marriage.
Otherwise, you’re just pushing for a Christian version of Iran. Which is fine, just be honest that’s what you’re after.
Joe, quit with the straw man fallacy. Nobody in Indiana is attempting to criminalize homosexuality, so quit hiding behind that straw man.
Oh, dear, if gays can’t marry, we’re Iran? If you can’t distinguish between Omaha and Tehran…
You want a religious position enlisted in the Indiana Constitution. To boot, it’s a poorly written Constitutional Amendment at that.
Articulate a reason why the government should care about your position.
It’s either no religion in the Constitution or all religion. If you want religion, that’s fine, just imagine it’s not your denomination, or even your religion.
Again, Joe, stop the straw man. There are a multitude of secular reasons to keep a gay union from being recognized as “marriage.”
A “multitude.” I presume they are “self-evident.”
Best I can tell, HB1153 is an attempt to nullify the second sentence of the amendment. But wouldn’t the amendment getting passed by the voters mean that HB1153 would be… unconstitutional? What am I missing here?
Seems like a pretty poor attempt at trying to keep the social conservatives and business folks that make up the current Republican Party both happy… when it simply can’t be done. Someone is going to be the loser in this one.
HB 1153 is the “we don’t really want to be bigots and seen as mean, so here’s what we meant, but we don’t have time to start this over and get it right, because we need it on the 2014 ballot” bill.
To me this is just a distraction. The idea of breaking into someone’s bedroom attracts much more attention than dealing with the fact that Indiana is in the bottom quarter of health care, can’t keep its educated people, has adopted educational schemes which will undermine its public schools, and sees its quality of life index dropping by the month. Gays, abortion and guns are enough to keep the public’s attention for a short legislative session.
I think that sometimes. Then I start to have a nagging feeling that me feeling like it’s a distraction is a luxury I have because I’m a married, straight white male. So, for my part, I don’t know that I can properly assess whether it’s a distraction.
No doubt, however, that the other things you point to are important, and the discussion of gay marriage does tend to suck the oxygen out of the room.
Good point. Just because I can’t totally identify with an issue, doesn’t mean it’s not a big issue. This needs some more reflection on my part. I suspect that a big part of me resents the demagoguery, pandering to the base, the cheap shots and the seeming lack of earnest attempt to try to appreciate the situation on the part of our legislators. Of course, that problem is epidemic for them. If a snake bites, it’s just doing what snakes do.
Thank you. I agree that health care and education and quality of life are all terribly important, and I wish the legislature would focus on them instead. But unfortunately I have to stand my ground on this issue because everything else falls apart for me if I don’t.
It becomes tangible what this HJR-3 fight actually means when you start to see the real-life ramifications of it for those of us who are gay – like the whopping amount of money I got back from the federal government this year because my wife and I were married in 2008 and have been filing income tax as single since then, until fed tax laws changed due to the DOMA decision. Or friends in another state whose adoption just went through, and a bouncing baby boy with special needs now has mommies which wouldn’t have happened a few years ago.
Why are you still attacking the language of the legislation? Attack the IDEA of the legislation. Marriage is a constitutional right of Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. “State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” (Windsor p16)
State regulates marriage ‘SUBJECT TO THOSE GUARANTEES’.
Judge Shelby in Utah & Judge Black in Ohio both addressed this issue in their rulings. Indiana legislators that support marriage equality should demand that the AG seek clarification from Constitutional lawyers and/or Supreme Court BEFORE this legislation goes any further.
Because I’m a lawyer and a former legislative drafter. It’s kind of my thing.
It’s now a constitutional amendment that needs a legislative amendment for the current intent of the people submitting the legislation. If the people of Indiana are so against same-sex marriage, why not start over and do it right?
(Yes, I know why.)
Jasper, the Romer v Evans decision from 1996 is more instructive in my opinion. In that case, the State of Colorado failed to relate an anti-gay law to any legitimate government interest, the lowest bar to meet for the government in Equal Protection cases. All they had to do was present a valid reason for treating gay people differently and they couldn’t even manage that. Also of note is that opinion was written by Justice Kennedy.
I think HJR-3 and other state marriage bans may have the same problem. Western district courts seem to be setting them up to fail the rational basis test at the SCOTUS. What government interest is served by preventing gay people from being married? That’s a question these social conservatives cannot seem to answer effectively. “Because I don’t like it!!!” isn’t going to cut it before the court.
Doug, I’m hoping that given your extensive background in Legislative Services, etc., you’ll continue to analyze this issue (the interplay between the a proposed constitutional and a statute purporting to interpret it. There’s a case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court right now dealing with the question as to whether or not its amendment, which is identical to HJR-3, permits domestic partnerships that involve only about half of the rights and benefits of marriage. National and Wisconsin allies of Eric Miller’s Advance America argue that it does, despite claims that it precludes only civil unions of the Vermont variety. I see that Senator Long has gone so far to insist that later on, the amendment would even permit the legislature to consider civil unions. Who knows where he’s getting that idea!
Well I don’t like people with red hair. The one I worship says that people with red hair have no souls. So let’s make it illegal for them to get married ! Even if the big businesses who support are economy say no and they’ll take their business elsewhere. I don’t like people with red hair ! Their gingers and have no souls ! I don’t care if it ruins Indiana ! I want my way !
Man I love woman with Red Hair! I married one!!! ;) Although she won’t admit it!!!! There is a lesson somewhere in this about gays but I am to tired to explain it! ;)
And, aren’t you glad you live in Indiana? Don’t you wish EVERYBODY did?
AAAAGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s all I can say!!!!!!! Instead I will type what my friend would say, ‘Is he an idoit!!!!!!!!”
This is the last thing we need, another soulless ‘war’ on a minority that benefits nothing but to the pocketbooks of a hanful of supremacists. As if we already didn’t have a huge problem attracting and retaining the educated.
What I always loved about the “one man and one woman” language is that it’s so happily ignorant, I’m waiting for it to backfire.
After all, “man” and “woman” are gender designations, not sexual designations (that’s “male” and “female”). It’s perfectly possible to have a marriage, under this language, between two males if one’s a man and one’s a woman.
It probably wouldn’t hold up, but the case might do some good to help educate the hate-filled bigots about transgender issues by publicizing the importance of proper language.
O_o
What does it take for a judge to recognize a male as a woman? What is the process?
Just sayin’, it’ll take me all of 30 seconds to stop Freedom from commenting here anymore.
I think that’s what he wants – is to be banned. I wouldn’t give him the pleasure. Witness how he folds under pressure.
Do I need to Google that?
These louts are frustrating, but they also give us some benefits:
1) we see what the arguments are on the other side
2) we learn to parry and thrust and hone our own language
3) without these people, we’d be in an echo chamber where everyone agrees with us
4) we get a good reminder of the level of debate — and where this is going to devolve.
Ready, set…
Pity running away and hiding isn’t a persuasive argument in real life, Amy.
You can’t stop real life with killfiles and IP blocks.
I am most unimpressed with you. Your threat is exactly the same level of childishness I see when I slam the Republicans on their wars, drug prohibitions, flag-adulation, sports-spending, authoritarianism (your husband’s bag), police worship and militarism.
It seems the ideological extremes can only be secure in their beliefs through solipsism.
Further, your “attempt” to glean my position on gay marriage, gay unions, gay inheritance, etc., has been nothing but shrill, strident and reflexive. You have achieved precisely nothing in learning the multiple points on which we share agreement so that you might narrow the disputed space.
As a devout campaign operative, you’re probably aces. As a negotiator, we need to keep you away from the folks with guns, short tempers and a hot dispute.
Amy, congratulations! You’ve just earned an accomplishment for your CV. “Freedom” is unimpressed with you. You stand in good company.
I guess your problem with Republicans there is that it’s the wrong kind of authoritarianism, right? Since you yourself also advocate authoritarianism.
I can’t even begin to reason with someone who thinks being gay is a developmental disorder. So why try?
From the dawn of time until the 1970’s, it was considered precisely that. In many countries, today, it still is considered a developmental disorder. 21st Century America is perhaps the softest point in the existence of humanity, so do consider that your perspective may be skewed.
Have you never considered the possibility that homosexuality is a defense mechanism? Do you know any homosexuals? If possible, take a close look at their upbringing. Almost without exception, you’ll find that something didn’t go quite right.
People often take a side route on the world when the main road is seen as too challenging.
Did you consider the fact that you may be a hateful homphobe weakly attempting to justify your bigotry with a stained record of hatred?
Except in those cultures where, you know, it wasn’t.
And even in those in which it was: so what? Wouldn’t be the first time people were wrong about something.
Can you be wrong about this issue?
I could be, but I’m not.
Would you have Indiana’s law allow two homosexual brothers to marry?
Freedom – the is already law on the books that disqualifies anyone in direct relation to marry each other in Indiana. Stop fear mongering what you don’t understand.
You failed to make a point, David. There’s a law on the books banning gay marriage. That law is under attack. What’s included in the attack? What would you have gay marriage entail, encompass and permit?
Looks like a straw man argument there, Freedom.
Do I know “homosexuals”? Ok, let’s talk like a human being. Do I know gay people? Yes. I know many. Some are good friends who are wonderful people. Some are my family members. I KNOW their upbringing because it was the same upbringing as mine. So don’t you dare take the stance that their upbringing was “wrong.” It wasn’t. It was the same as mine.
They were born gay, but you are choosing to be an imbecile.
“I am most unimpressed with you.”
Spare us. In this same thread, you refuse to post a single one of your own reasons why you support the most divisive issue in the 2014 General Assembly. Instead, asking us to look it up, where we can only make assumptions as to which reasons are yours.
You have invited assumptions about what you believe, don’t whine about it. If you don’t want to be generalized, be specific.
Maybe Google can help you figure out why that makes you look awfully out of your depth here. Have you considered a run for the Indiana Legislature? You might find it a useful support group of similarly capable people.
“In this same thread, you refuse to post a single one of your own reasons why you support the most divisive issue in the 2014 General Assembly.”
Not true, at all. Another straw man from you. I said that I’m not going to repeat myself, and no gentleman would dare to make such an imposition of me. Courtesy demands that you look for my easily obtainable words prior to asking me to repeat them.
Joe, are you truly so divorced from reality as to think that you, or anyone here, possesses a greater depth of argument than me? Whenever I appear, I take this irrational sewing bee to the woodshed and leave it steppin’ and fetchin.’
Yer lookin’ up at me, Son.
Only in your own mind, little dude.
“Not true, at all. Another straw man from you. I said that I’m not going to repeat myself, and no gentleman would dare to make such an imposition of me. Courtesy demands that you look for my easily obtainable words prior to asking me to repeat them.”
Oh, so that’s what the phrase “Yer Google broke”? means. Gotcha. I haven’t run into many gentleman who respond to questions that way.
“Joe, are you truly so divorced from reality as to think that you, or anyone here, possesses a greater depth of argument than me? Whenever I appear, I take this irrational sewing bee to the woodshed and leave it steppin’ and fetchin.’
Yer lookin’ up at me, Son.”
That’s pretty presumptuous. My perspective is that the last time you were here a few months ago, you got your own woodshed whipping and weren’t seen for some time afterwards. But whatever makes you sleep better at night, I suppose.
I’m pretty sure it’s not what you say, but that it’s because you feel empowered to treat other human beings poorly behind your anonymous handle while at the same time rambling on about being treated like a “gentleman” like a third-rate Limbaugh wannabe.
Back to the matter at hand – since you’re complaining that homosexuality should be regarded as a developmental disease, what peer-reviewed scientific studies support your position?
If you’re going to change the Indiana Constitution, it better be on some good evidence. How come I don’t hear about these studies from Eric Miller when I go to his website?
Failing to produce such evidence would lead me to believe you, in your own special way, are divorced from reality.
Joe, I have better things to do than to babysit this site and spoon-feed lessons to a troop of shrieking monkeys with a low capacity for learning.
Do know that when I speak, I’m right. By any objective standard, I have won every argument on this site in a rout, greater than Brady administering his regular beatings to the Colts.
That I find other avenues for my interest does not mean that your abandonment proves you’re right. This place is truly an echo chamber with the shallowest of arguments from its six, or so, congregants.
Such a church cannot long hold my interest.
You’ve won every argument on this site you’ve ever been in? WOW!
I bet you are the best looking guy ever, too – because your mom told you so!
Freedom is aware of all Internet traditions.
Of course it can’t hold your interest. You don’t want to debate facts, you want to debate your feelings.
Maybe you should change your handle to “Truthiness”. After all, it’s “truth that comes from the gut, not books.”
– Colbert
Oh, one last thing. I’ve heard Bing is sometimes better than Google. Maybe you could look for that link I asked for there?
HJR3 goes to the Judiciary Committee Monday morning at 10:00 AM. The hearing is expected to last one hour and then a vote is anticipated. This after Bosma said this bill wasn’t on their short list. Opponents of HJR3 are wearing red to signify “stop”.
With apologies to the departed Hank Williams Junior! Everybody sing along!
If my partner and I are fussin’, brother that’s our right
‘Cause me and that sweet guy wants a license to fight
Why don’t you mind your own business
(Mind your own business)
‘Cause if you mind your business, then you won’t be mindin’ mine.
Hank Williams Sr wrote this I changed the lyrics just a bit – Junior just made a buck off of it!
Opps junior is still alive! Just barely due to his drinking and drugs! Dads died in a car accident back in the day.
I’m also for marriage defined only as one male and one female.. That is, one XX and one XY. Rare exceptions shouldn’t make the rule, in my opinion. I’m not a hater nor a homophobe. Neither side should be calling names but should invite honest dialogue. Not liking or not agreeing with another’s reasons doesn’t make them unreasonable. My teenagers also don’t always like my reasoning at times but I still stand by it. And I still love them. As an aside, I will not be following this thread, and therefore, I will not be aware of any responses either way. I wish you all well!