Senate Bill 3 came up for second reading in the Senate today. As discussed a few days ago, Sen. Drozda introduced this bill that turned dealing cocaine or narcotic drug from a Class B felony into a Class A felony if it was committed near a church. That would have made the offense more serious than, say, rape or manslaughter.

Senator Lanane offered an amendment that, while keeping the offense a Class B felony, allows a court to consider the fact of dealing drugs near a church (or other house of worship) as an aggravating factor when deciding on a sentence. His amendment prevailed by a vote of 26 to 23, but I can’t seem to find a break down of the vote.

[tags]SB3-2007, crime[/tags]

Senator Hershman has reintroduced Joint Resolution 7 which would amend the Indiana Constitution to prohibit granting marriage rights or their equivalent to same sex couples. Senators Heinold, Bray, Jackman, Waterman, Kruse, Nugent, Dillon, (Mike) Young, Delph, Weatherwax, Riegsecker, and Drozda have joined Senator Hershman as co-authors. This provision has passed one General Assembly and has to pass this one as well, before it would go on the ballot in 2008 to be voted on by the public. It has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Bray, one of the co-authors, chairs that committee, so the resolution will have no problem getting a hearing.

The full text of the resolution states as follows:

(a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

First, I don’t like monkeying with the Constitution unless it’s necessary. It is not necessary here. There is already a statute prohibiting same sex marriage. I don’t particularly like the statute. If I were a legislator, I wouldn’t have voted for it. But, because a) I’m not gay and it’s not my ox being gored; b) marriage is heavily intertwined with religious beliefs that are apparently opposed to same-sex marriages; and c) the door is open to conveying equal rights under a different label; I can live with it.

If that statute were struck down as being in violation of the Indiana Constitution because it violated an Indiana Constitutional provision, then, theoretically, a better argument could be made for amending the Constitution. However, part of that argument would have to involve making a case as to why denying rights to same sex couples ought to trump whatever part of the Indiana Constitution was being violated.

But, the proposed Constitutional amendment goes much, much further than the current Indiana statute by prohibiting any Indiana law from requiring a legal incident of marriage to be conferred upon an unmarried couple. In other words, as I read the proposed amendment, if there is a right that is an incident of marriage, Indiana law is not permitted to extend that right to same sex couples. Think of marriage as creating a bundle of rights. This amendment not only says that the bundle can’t be extended to same sex couples. It’s saying that if there is a stick in that marriage bundle, same sex couples cannot be given the same type of stick. In my mind, that is simply abusive.

Similar language in Ohio is causing significant problems, including arguments that laws against domestic violence cannot be enforced against unmarried couples. This sort of provision approved in Nebraska was struck down by a federal judge who wrote that the provision:

“goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman.” Its “broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals,” he noted.

(The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals apparently overturned the District Court.)

Section (b) of Indiana’s proposed amendment simply goes too far. I’m not precisely sure what evil proponents are trying to remedy with this amendment, but the cure is much worse than the disease. From the proponent’s rhetoric all I get is that gays somehow threaten heterosexual marriages. Which is obviously nonsense. If the government grants the same or similar rights to a same sex couple as I have by virtue of marriage to my wife, it has jack all to do with my marriage. My marriage rises or falls based on my relationship with my wife. Proponents of SJR 7 are using a Gatling Gun to shoot a fly. If they think that same sex couples ought not have a particular right or rights, it is incumbent on them to identify the right and tell the world why the same sex couple ought not have the right. If they merely think same sex couples ought not enjoy a status labeled “marriage,” then they ought to strike all of subsection (b) from the amendment (and make the case for why same sex couples ought not enjoy the “marriage” label.) And, if they have not thought through the particulars of their position, but merely have an inchoate sense that gay people are icky, then shame on them for messing with our Constitution based on emotion rather than reason.

[tags]SJR7-2007, culture wars[/tags]

A few days ago, I mentioned Rep. Crooks’ Masson’s Blog – A Citizen’s Guide to Indiana » HB 1070 – Prohibition on forced ID implants. It prohibits governments or others from requiring implantation of a subcutaneous identification device. Subcutaneous would mean “under the skin.” A Slashdot post referencing a Register story notes the development of an RFID tattoo.

The Register reports that a St Louis based company, Somark Innovations, has successfully tested RFID tattoos to be used for tracking cattle and other animals. Details are limited for the actual tattoo, but it’s said to contain no metals and can be read up to about four feet away. Engadget has some more details on the matter. And yes, the article does mention RFID tattoos are possible for people, specifically the military. From the article: ‘The system developed by Somark uses an array of needles to quickly inject a pattern of dots into each animal, with the pattern changing for each injection. This pattern can then be read from over a meter away using a proprietary reader operating at high frequency.

I don’t know if tattoos would fall in to the category of “subcutaneous,” but it’s a close enough call that, if HB 1070 progresses, it should probably be amended to specify RFID tattoos. (RFID stands for Radio Frequency Identification.)

[tags]HB1070-2007, technology, Big Brother[/tags]

Senate Bill 3 Controlled Substances. Sen. Drozda:

Provides that dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug within 1,000 feet of a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or house of worship is a Class A felony.

Senator Drozda’s original version just enhanced the penalty for dealing drugs within 1,000 feet of a church. The Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters amended the bill to include synagogues, temples, mosques, or houses of worship and passed the measure, as amended, by a vote of 6 to 5. All of the Democrats and Republican Michael Young voted against it. Currently the enhancement from a “B” felony to an “A” felony is reserved for selling more than 3 grams, selling to a minor, or selling in, on, or near a school, park, family housing project, or youth program center. Prior policy seems to reflect the idea that selling drugs to or around young people is more harmful than selling to adults. (But, to be clear, a “B” felony results in some pretty stiff penalties.) Given Sen. Drozda’s legislative history, I get the feeling he’s more concerned about profaning a holy place than anything else.

At the end of the day, I think a “B” felony is stiff enough for pretty much any drug charge. If they’re not going to rethink their actions when facing a 6 to 20 year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine, I doubt the “A” felony with 20 to 50 years is going to have a greater deterrent effect. Not that the penalty isn’t significantly greater. It is. But, the sorts of folks who are going to ignore a 6 to 20 year sentence probably aren’t exactly “deep thinkers.” So, we’ll end up with approximately the same level of crime and more jail cells. And, I have a hard time regarding sale of a drug to a willing, adult buyer as being more serious than rape (a Class B felony) or voluntary manslaughter (a Class B felony) — even if it happens to be sold near a church.

[tags]SB3-2007, crime[/tags]