The Senate passed Sen. Steele’s SJR 9 out of committee which amends the Indiana Constitution to provide, among other things, that the commercial production of poultry is a valued part of our heritage which should be preserved forever.
Specifically, it adds a new section to the bill of rights article of the constitution that reads:
Section 38. The people have a right to hunt, fish, harvest game, or engage in the agricultural or commercial production of meat, fish, or poultry, which is a valued part of our heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good, subject to laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly.
I would suggest, respectfully (or maybe not so respectfully), that this is a waste of time. I mean, it doesn’t *do* anything. It says right in the text that the General Assembly regulate these things as it sees fit. And, really, is “harvesting game” (as distinct from hunting) a proud part of our Hoosier tradition?
Might this Constitutional amendment have an impact on local ordinances or homeowners association rules that prohibit keeping livestock?
And these are same folks who want to get rid of local government because ______ ______ ___ (fill the blanks) and including wasting taxpayer resources
Maybe. It just seems very oddly constructed if they intend it to actually accomplish anything.
Several of the pending legislation would impact local goverance—livestock or not???? must enforce immigation laws; may wipe out local gun ordinances such as those against discharging in city/town; no franchise fees; serious restrictions on annexation (possible no waivers allowed), etc. etc. —every session brings out the point that the collective wisdom held with the capital building has little respect for government by other than themselves. Hopefully enough common sense will prevail to avoid some of them but until the final gavel and adjournment sine die there is no peace of mind.
I think we can call it the “Chicken on Every Block” Amendment.. makes about as much sense in the freakin’ BILL OF RIGHTS.. as the Marriage Discrimination Amendment denying rights. Neither issue is pressing when we have a huge budget crisis, education funding and reform, redistricting, and more on our plate.
By the way, Doug – I was told today by reliable sources, that Sen Ron Alting is being threatened with having his district drawn without Purdue by the leadership and chair of that committee —- Sen. Brandt Hershman. It seems Ron is way too independent and votes his constituents’ interests too often.. and Hershman wants the plum of being able to represent the university.
Who are these sponsors (other than a couple of Wankers)?
@HoosierOne: The trope that the Marriage Protection Amendment (or whatever they’re calling it) “denies rights” has always struck me as flatfooted or worse.
The cute little yellow equal sign on blue field begs the question of “what is marriage?” Only when we know that can we know whether America’s beloved equality value does or does not require extension of that institution to couples of the same sex.
Like it or dislike it, the Marriage Amendment expresses the intent of those who think that equality does not require SSM to take from the State Courts the ability to decree SSM on the basis of a novel and likely unenduring view of marriage.
the facts are these:
1: marriage provides couples with a number of legal rights (hospital visitation, etc) that are currently impossible or very difficult for same-sex couples to acquire in many states.
2: SJR-7 (the proposed indiana marriage amendment) would not only ban same-sex marriage, but would also bar “the legal incidents of marriage” from being “conferred upon unmarried couples or groups”. thus, it bans not just same-sex marriage, but civil unions as well.
so yes, by any definition that makes sense, the marriage amendment would deny rights to same-sex couples.
And the Marriage Duscrimination Amendment would prevent future legislators from, for example, creating civil union. The Constitution would prohibit equality with no way to change things other than another amendment. Does this General Assembly think so little of what Hoosiers might vote for in future years that they need to make change that much more difficult?
Important to note – the bill this year is called SJR 13 (Senate) and HJR6 (House). The first hearing is Monday, Feb 7th at 10:30 in the House Judiciary Committee. The same arguments will be made on both sides.
Interesting though to me are two questions:
1) since this was such a dire need to change — and solidify for generations — how are those states doing that have allowed same sex marriage (Not that I propose that for Indiana..) Have they suffered huge job losses in the last 5 years? Have additional thousands of straight couples gotten divorced due to the lack of status of marriage? What dire consequence has occurred in Massachusetts for instance – our leading den of iniquity?
2) How many jobs will be created or protected by this measure? Will this measure be able to protect our budget – pay down our debt – reform our schools? Or was this one of the covert parts of the last campaign – and now a sop to the rightwing of a party needing to get votes?
@tipsy teetotaler By novel and likely unenduring view of marriage, I assume you mean the idea that marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people who love one another, as opposed to simply two people of the appropriate gender.
I am a former Hoosier living in Illinois, which Gov. Daniels says is Homer Simpson. But by extension, that makes Indiana Stupid Flanders, and this legislature makes me think that I’d rather be with crazy Homer — who is a lot more fun and interesting — than Stupid Flanders, even if I have to pay more to do it (millions of Chicagoans have made a similar decision). I guess we’ll find out in two years whether this legislature is Stupid Flanders, or if the whole state is consigning itself to that role.
However, if Stupid Flanders opens a Leftorium, as a left-hander I might have to reconsider my stance.
Is it any wonder we citizens have such a low opinion of legislative bodies? We have jobs issues that need attention, and the Lege wastes its time on stuff like this.
It is not in the national interest to turn adjoining states and regions against each other. We are all in this [mess] together. I would now never imagine Mitch Daniels ever carrying Illinois in a presidential primary – following his rather crass statement about the Land of Lincoln (once also known as the ‘Sucker State’).
sTAllio: Right on with your criticism of what Michael calls the “Marriage Discrimination Amendment”. However, the terms you use (like “legal incidents of marriage”) are from a prior version, SJR-7. It been replaced by something more draconian, with a big blotch of fuzziness called “substantially similar to marriage”, which it say won’t be recognized. Whereas SJR-7 was represented as only restricting so-called “activiest judges” from meddling in marriage-like things, the new version tells the General Assembly and everbody else to stay clear out of the area.
Doug, how do we get the organized bar in Indiana educated better as to what this kind of ambiguous thing would do to the state of family and related law? I heard one of the sponsor’s legal reps for the first time say that a contract between two partners agreeing to spit their goods as if they were married, and other things that would approximate a marital relationship, would not be considered valid by a court. That is really a step up from what was previously represented.