Long article by Tony Cook and Bob Berggoetz of the Indianapolis Star on some of the behind the scenes action in the Indiana Senate on HJR 3, the resolution to ban marriage equality in the Indiana Constitution.
The short version seems to be that Indiana’s social conservative activist groups feel like they were promised that the proposed constitutional amendment would pass through the General Assembly in a form that would put it on the 2014 ballot. When the second sentence was stripped out in the House, they were unhappy and became moreso when they felt like Senate leadership did not accommodate their desires to have the second sentence re-inserted in the Senate. The most prominent of these activist groups are Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute, Micah Clark of the “American Family Association,” and Eric Miller of “Advance America.” (Indiana families, American families, and advancement! Who could be against those, right?!?)
When Sen. Long assigned the resolution to the Rules Committee instead of the Judiciary Committee, the suspicion of these people was because Judiciary could have re-inserted the amendment while Rules is pretty firmly under the control of Sen. Long who didn’t want the second sentence in. The article reports rumors that socially conservative Senators, such as Mike Delph, were conspiring – as a way to voice their disapproval of the weakened amendment – to align with the Democrats to vote down the remaining sentence entirely when the existing version came to the Senate floor.
Whatever machinations took place, the fact is that an amendment to restore the second sentence was never even called to the floor for debate and, I believe, Sen. Delph was the only socially conservative Senator to vote against the remaining amendment.
In fact, the whole process made the social conservatives look rather toothless. Unlike the anti-HJR 3 Freedom, Indiana group, the Smith, Clark, Miller conglomerate seemed unable to engineer supporting resolutions by cities, towns, and other Indiana institutions the way Freedom, Indiana did. The testimony offered by pro-HJR 3 groups was generally in the form of out-of-state shills who offered up a plates of red herring and platitudes about “saving marriage” without connecting the dots about how same sex marriages would endanger existing heterosexual marriages and without seeming to acknowledge that Indiana’s statutory law already prohibits same sex marriages. Meanwhile, Freedom Indiana and its allies offered up real Hoosiers with lives that are harmed by the current law and would be further harmed by the amendment. And, despite the fears of moderate Republicans, primary challenges did not materialize for those having second thoughts about the wisdom of HJR 3.
It’s difficult to say whether this relatively anemic lobbying and public relations activity on the part of HJR 3 supporters was simply a reflection of anemic support for HJR 3 among the broader community or, rather, a reflection of complacency in their relationships with state lawmakers. But, at the moment, there appears to be a fractured relationship between social conservatives and more mainstream Republicans. And, for now anyway, Sen. Delph appears to be on the outside looking in.
A factor that came up this year that hasn’t really been as prominent in this fight in past years – the live feed of legislatures hearings on the bill. when I posted the links on twitter and facebook those were some of my most retweeted and shared posts by far. The number of people watching those hearings live and hearing the pro and anti testimony for the first time had a real effect on the number of people writing and emailing in. My family members watched, and they’ve never seen this kind of testimony before. The anti testimony had them tied up in knots they were upset and furious to hear the kind of stuff that I’ve been hearing in legislative testimony from IFI and AFA since 1989.
When people get a real window into what’s going on in the state legislature, they tend to act on it.
“The testimony offered by pro-HJR 3 groups was generally in the form of out-of-state shills who offered up a plates of red herring and platitudes about “saving marriage” without connecting the dots about how same sex marriages would endanger existing heterosexual marriages…” And that’s why the battle was lost. They never connected the dots on that issue.
Possibly because those dots don’t actually connect.
Indeed, Doug, indeed.
Instead of lobbing self-congratulatory adverbs at one another for sharing the same political position, do either of you have any science to cite? In places that have allowed homosexual unions, are real marriage rates higher, and do real marriages last longer than in places that do not respect homosexual unions? Further, is there a sufficient sample size and study duration to make the studies credible?
Why do you ask?
Oh good, you’re back. Ever find that link for how gun buyback programs are “government gun confiscation schemes”?
Because it sure seems like you want us to do your research for you.
I can show you how Google Search works it if would help. I might be able to even help if, as it’s been said, “yer Google broke”.
Hey Freedom – try this on for size.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/divorce-rate-in-gay-marri_b_267259.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/06/divorce-rates-lower-in-states-with-same-sex-marriage
Oh my, Freedom, how easy the Google is…
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/States-That-Allow-Same-Sex-Marriage-Have-Lower-Divorce-Rates-213335351.html
I found something else for you Freedom. Too bad you don’t know how to use search engines Dinno, A. and Whitney, C. (2013).Same-Sex Marriage and The Perceived Assault on Opposite Sex Marriage. Plos/One. June 11, 2013. As retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065730.
If you read something other than crayon, you will find the authors saying, “We found that state rates of opposite sex marriage in the U.S. from 1989–2009 do not significantly differ when same sex marriage and union laws are in force compared to when they are not in force, contrary both to concerns raised by opponents of same sex marriage and same sex civil unions,”
Not coming back to reply, are ya Freedom?
I would think it also had to off-putting to some HJR-3 supporters among the voting populace when legislators equated saving marriage from the gays to saving marriage from divorcees and couples without children (whether they chose not to have them or were not physically capable of handling them).
The whole thing struck me as being “Hamburger Hill” for the IN GA. The amendment was ignorant, at least of current trends in the US. If it went on the ballot and lost, the party looks foolish (esp. given they have a supermajority and a theocrat running the state). If it won, it would face certain legal challenge. Given the Utah loss, KY loss, VA loss… and NJ and others failing to even maintain legal fights it seems particularly foolish. Winning the amendment would have certainly expedited the process of making same sex marriages legal in Indiana.
And now, look at the Republican Party. With Delph’s comments and censure it seems all they managed to do was fracture their own party.
The party fracture reminds me of that point in most seasons of “Survivor” when the dominant tribe outnumbers the weaker tribe by enough that one faction of the dominant tribe regards the other as more of a threat than the other tribe.
“We must unite against the common enemy!”
“The Judean People’s Front!”
It seemed to me that Indiana was saving time and energy by stalling on the amendment and, perhaps, on the backlash religion-protection actions as well — such as the Arizona “anti-gay” law. The backlash bills are interesting because there’s some tooth in the argument, along with a huge shadow. Protecting the individual’s or group’s discrimination against gay couples is the easy part. But there are also “sincerely held” beliefs against biracial marriage, bi-religious couples, women showing their cleavage — voting! — etc.