I’m not ready to say that the proposed Constitutional provision that would ban same sex marriages and also a “substantially similar legal status” for unmarried individuals will fail to pass, but the drastic reduction in support over recent years is something to behold. Recall that in 2004, House Speaker Brian Bosma considered a gay marriage ban “the most important issue” facing the state.

This year, Speaker Bosma and the leadership team have not listed it in their package of legislative priorities. Gov-elect Mike Pence is sidestepping questions about his support for the Constitutional Amendment. Clearly he’s in favor, but publicly, anyway, he says he’s going to just let the legislature do its thing, and he says he won’t make it a point of emphasis from the governor’s office.

Today, Maureen Hayden, writing for CNHI, has an article entitled Support for gay-marriage ban wavering. Sen. Kenley, one of the more prominent leaders in the Indiana Senate, has said he won’t be supporting the measure.

Noting what he called the “rapidly evolving” shift in public opinion reflected in a poll released Thursday, the influential, conservative Republican said he’ll oppose such a measure if, as expected, it comes up for debate in the 2013 session.

“I don’t think putting it in the Constitution is a good idea,” said Kenley, the powerful Senate appropriations committee chairman who describes himself as a supporter of traditional marriage.

So, he is not ready to vote for legalizing same sex marriage. But, it’s already not legal in Indiana pursuant to IC 31-11-1.

IC 31-11-1-1
Same sex marriages prohibited
Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.
(b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.

(Upheld by Morrison v. Sadler.

Be that as it may, I view the loss of appetite for engrafting marriage inequality into the Constitution as a positive step so that future generations can make their own choices. And, I especially support any move that prevents that horribly ambiguous second sentence about substantially similar legal statuses making its way into our state Constitution.

Even so, I expect that Rep. Eric Turner and lobbyists Micah Clark and Eric Miller have the drive and the clout to push the amendment through. But, that’s a bet I’d be happy to lose.

The Evansville Courier Press has an editorial entitled “Constitutional ban on gay marriage bad for state, its economy.” You pretty automatically expect the liberal position out of, say, the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. Seems like the Evansville Courier Press is more of a crap shoot. So, it seems to be one more bit of evidence that public opinion is shifting in this area.

The editorial gives a few reasons for opposition:

1. We already have a “defense of marriage act”. All this does with respect to the possibility of gay marriage in Indiana is make it harder for hypothetical future majorities in the General Assembly to pass legislation in favor of marriage equality.

2. The second part, invalidating a legal status “substantially similar” (whatever that means) to marriage for unmarried individuals has a high potential for unintended consequences. A group of law students has apparently identified something like 600 legal provisions that could be affected.

3. It sends the wrong message. It tells gays that Indiana regards them as second class citizens; likely encouraging those with talent and skills to go elsewhere. Also, it potentially hamstrings the ability of companies and organizations that would like to offer benefits to same sex couples.

Mary Beth Schneider, writing for the Indy Star, has an interesting article about a legislative priority of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce to prohibit allowing voluntary deductions from teacher paychecks for payment of union dues. They don’t particularly want to apply this prohibition to other public sector unions like firefighters or police.

No principled reason for this hangs together if you single out a particular kind of public sector union. But, principle doesn’t have a lot to do with this aside from the principle that “unions are political opponents and we’d like them to be weaker.”

The article suggests that, with the wide availability of automatic withdrawals or payments from bank accounts, the elimination of deductions from paychecks might not be as big a deal for the unions as it once was. Still, it’s fairly clear that this initiative is little more than union bashing.

I am getting mixed messages out of Indianapolis with respect to the state’s budget outlook. Last week, there was happy news from the Governor about a budget surplus and a $110 per taxpayer refund. Today, Tom LoBianco, writing for the Associated Press, has an article entitled Capitol Crossroads: Grim budget picture shapes up for Indiana lawmakers.

Last week, because the state’s budget surplus exceeded 10% of its budget, taxpayers get a hundred bucks. This week, Speaker Bosma is quoted as saying “the fiscal fog is thick,” because state tax collections are stagnant and because gambling revenues are falling as adjacent states get into the gambling game, because of cuts to corporate income taxes, because of a phase out of the state inheritance tax, and because of Gov-elect Pence’s call for a 10% cut in personal income taxes.

As a result:

Even though lawmakers and governor-elect Mike Pence come into 2013 with a state flush with cash reserves worth an estimated $2 billion, they’re facing programs starved for support — including the Department of Child Services, which told lawmakers it has trouble holding caseworkers because of low salaries — and a continued economic drag.

When you get down to it, lawmakers who want to reduce government services probably ought to be more forthright and replace the explanation of “we can’t afford it” with the more accurate explanation of “we don’t want to.”

Per WCSI out of Columbus and to nobody’s surprise, the Indiana General Assembly will move forward with a Constitutional Amendment that, along with gay marriage, bars future legislators from adopting laws giving unmarried individuals rights substantially similar to those enjoyed by a married man and woman.

The shorthand for this Amendment is going to be “gay marriage,” but the second sentence of the amendment looks like a potentially huge wild card that goes beyond whether or not gay people can get married:

A legal status substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid.

What does that mean? You tell me. I don’t know.

Sophia Voravong, writing for the Lafayette Journal and Courier, has an article about a proposal to decriminalize marijuana possession expected to be considered by the upcoming Indiana General Assembly.

[Sen. Brent] Steele, chairman of the Senate committee on corrections, criminal and civil matters, wants to make possession of 10 grams or less of marijuana an infraction — similar to a traffic violation— instead of a misdemeanor, he told the Indianapolis Business Journal last month.

I don’t particularly think marijuana itself is inherently more troublesome than alcohol or cigarettes. And I don’t think those things are terribly likely to be gateways to harder, more damaging drugs like heroin or meth. But I do have a problem with decriminalization. I figure either they should leave it alone or legalize it. The problem I have with merely imposing a lighter penalty is that you’re still buying it from criminals.

In a sense, by decriminalizing marijuana but not legalizing it, you are encouraging more interactions between mostly law abiding citizens and folks more likely to rob them or use violence to protect their market share or enforce contracts.

I don’t know much about the drug economy, but my sense is that Anheuser Busch plays hardball, but they do it through the courts, police, and exercise of economic leverage. They have options, so direct violence probably isn’t in their tool kit. Joe Drug Dealer who has a marijuana line he would like you to purchase can’t go to the courts to enforce his contracts and the opinion of the FTC is probably low on his list of concerns. And, if John Drug Dealer tries to introduce competition into the market place, they probably won’t work out their differences in court.

So, anyway, it seems likely that by increasing the number of marijuana transactions and expanding the population engaging in such transactions, you increase the opportunities for violence. That, more than any real concerns about the nature of the drug itself, makes me think that decriminalization isn’t such a great idea.

Not sure if there was any real need to bring Zeppelin into this, but Nikki Kelly has an article in the Journal Gazette entitled “Road Work Funds Low on Fuel.”

Receipts from the state gas tax are lower than they’ve been since 2000, costs to maintain roads and bridges have not gone down, and things are falling apart. Meanwhile, there is talk in Indianapolis about a “surplus.” I could probably generate a surplus in my household too if I just stopped paying for stuff; never mind the roof falling in.

Apparently this has been an issue for quite a while but cities and towns have mainly kept quiet in the face of ugly budgetary constraints at the state level. But, now that there’s talk of refunding the “surplus” without taking a close look at maintenance needs, there might be a bit of a dust up.

One problem seems to be that the gas tax used to maintain roads has stayed flat at 18 cents per gallon while vehicles have become more fuel efficient — in other words, drivers have been taxed less per mile driven. It’s good to encourage fuel efficiency, but at the same time, you have to pay for this stuff.

There is also apparently an issue with a state agency having budgetary increases that have been relatively small but which have been paid for out of a fund traditionally reserved for actual road expenditures. But revenues for that fund have been flat as well, leading to a net loss in money available for roads.

There is some squabbling between state and local officials about whose taxes ought to be raised to pay for the roads — local roads, local taxes say the state officials. The state gas tax is paid by locals, why shouldn’t it all be spent on local needs respond the local officials. No one wants to be seen as raising taxes.

This particularly caught my interest because I’m about 80% through a book by Earl Swift called Big Roads: The untold story of the engineers, visionaries, and trailblazers who created the American Superhighways. First of all, the condition of the roads in the early 20th century were horrible. The invisible hand of the free market had done nothing to create good roads. They were mostly impassable sludge when it rained, for example. Ultimately, it took government and a lot of it to create our road system. According to Swift, motorists of the time welcomed the gasoline tax. It undoubtedly helped that the advent of the gas tax coincided with a drop in the price of gasoline; but the “gas taxes seemed puny next to the progress they bankrolled.” People of the time were aware of the condition of the roads in the absence of those gas taxes.

People today just have no concept of truly miserable roads. And, to make matters worse, even while motorists are paying somewhat less per mile in taxes, the cost of gasoline itself has been rising quickly; meaning any sense of saving is simply wiped out. Makes me wonder what we could have accomplished if, back when gas was a dollar or two, if we had taxed it up to $2.50 or $3 – which we’re paying now – whether we could have built up our road funds or our public transportation infrastructure. Now we’re paying that much, but it’s mostly going to gas companies for their product.