Indiana Marriage Amendment: End of an Era

[Alnitak]

Two weeks from now, on Monday January 7, Indiana's legislature will convene for 30 working days to debate changes to the state's laws. Among those changes will be a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.

Indiana is one of only four states that ban marriage equality by statute. The other 46 have marriage equality (18) or amendments banning it (28). The last state to pass such a ban was North Carolina in May 2012. Even by then there hadn't been any other constitutional bans since the notorious Proposition 8, Arizona, and Florida in 2008. Barring some unexpected developments in Wyoming, West Virginia, or Pennsylvania, it looks like Indiana's attempts to amend its constitution will mark the end of an era for this opprobrious practice.

Indiana has pushed off considering constitutional change because Democrats have always held at least one chamber of the legislature. When the Tea Party wave ushered Indiana Republicans into large majorities in the 2011 session, passing a constitutional amendment was one of the first things they accomplished. However, amendments must be passed twice in separately elected legislatures. They had the opportunity to do so in 2013, but passed on it because of pending cases before the US Supreme Court.

Now Indiana Republicans are finding that the "tables have turned." Because of Evangelical pressure, and a party fetish for passing bans on gay marriage, they rushed straight into a battle they don't want and can't get out of...

“The tables have turned on this issue, and the Republican members are at a loss about what to do about it,” said Representative Scott Pelath, the House minority leader. “They’re quaking in their boots about what will happen if they don’t pass this thing. But they’re fearful about what will happen down the road if they do.”

Indiana Finds It’s Not So Easy to Buck Gay Marriage Trend

Republican legislators wary of the trends for marriage equality are starting to resist, especially because the amendment bans other types of unions even for heterosexual couples. If the Republican leaders decide to restrict the language, they must wait another two years to pass that language, placing the vote on the ballot for 2016, by which time the US Supreme Court will have ruled and a majority of Hoosiers will reject it outright. As it is, Hoosiers reject the current language by 54% according to some polls and as much as 58% according to the NYT article above.

In any case, this is the last such constitutional amendment battle we are likely to ever face again, and winning it will cement the legacy of marriage equality, and the doom of efforts to oppose it.

This particular battle is likely to explode with updates in coming weeks. So stay tuned...

[T-Rexx]

My sense of the mood in Indiana is that this constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will pass.

Indiana is a very Republican state and Republicans want badly to make a strong statement against gay rights.

It hardly matters, however. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court strikes down their proud hatred.

[scream4ever]

Even if the legislature approves it, it will not pass with voters as the ban on other forms of recognition goes too far.

[tmat50]

I live in Indiana

[Alnitak]

I live in Indiana

Will you share your perspective with us?

[Vitamin]

Even if the legislature approves it, it will not pass with voters as the ban on other forms of recognition goes too far.

In 2006 Virginia passed the Marshall-Newman amendment which outlawed marriage, and any form of recongintion for gays that could be argued to be the equvilant of marriage. Do I think 2013/2014 Indiana has similarities to 2006 Virginia? Yes. Yes, I do.

Hopefully, by the time it comes up, the Supreme Court will have already expanded marriage rights to all 50 states making Indiana's verison of Marshall-Newman useless.

[Alnitak]

In 2006 Virginia passed the Marshall-Newman amendment which outlawed marriage, and any form of recongintion for gays that could be argued to be the equvilant of marriage. Do I think 2013/2014 Indiana has similarities to 2006 Virginia? Yes. Yes, I do.

19 states have an all encompassing ban like the model one Nebraska passed in 2000. Nine bans are marriage only.

Hopefully, by the time it comes up, the Supreme Court will have already expanded marriage rights to all 50 states making Indiana's verison of Marshall-Newman useless.

It's possible that the language will be changed, and the new one will become unenforceable even before it has the chance to be voted on.

[tmat50]

It's already written into the Indiana state constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman - it was to keep the Mormons out of the state - this amendment was written by some tea party nut to outlaw companies and businesses from offering domestic partner benefits to people - straight and gay - if this passes I will most likely loose my health insurance - since my partners company offers domestic partner benefits - which I have had for over 15 years - this amendment will make it against the law

[Alnitak]

It's already written into the Indiana state constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman - it was to keep the Mormons out of the state - this amendment was written by some tea party nut to outlaw companies and businesses from offering domestic partner benefits to people - straight and gay - if this passes I will most likely loose my health insurance - since my partners company offers domestic partner benefits - which I have had for over 15 years - this amendment will make it against the law

While there is a law banning same sex marriage and polygamy in Indiana, there is no such constitutional amendment.

The Indiana Constitution actually says nothing about marriage at all: http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.txt

Private companies will still be allowed to offer domestic partnership benefits. Article I Sec. 10 of the US Constitution bans any law that impairs a private contract. The marriage amendment will ban government domestic partnerships. Even so, some states with domestic partnership bans have managed to get same sex couples limited rights as Wisconsin has and for example some localities in Texas.

[tmat50]

guess well have to see what happens

[tmat50]

Indiana is not really as backward as people think - the problem here is people don't get out and vote except in the major elections

[Alnitak]

Indiana is not really as backward as people think - the problem here is people don't get out and vote except in the major elections

I didn't think so. The poll numbers already show defeat for this amendment.

Having the vote in 2014 was probably what the GOP leadership had in mind all along, but it was just fate really that they were elected in 2010.

[tmat50]

no it was low turnout

[Alnitak]

In Australia voting is compulsory or else a $50 fine. They now have a right wing government that will never legalize same sex marriage willingly, despite popular support around 60%.

[T-Rexx]

Indiana is not really as backward as people think - the problem here is people don't get out and vote except in the major elections

I didn't think so. The poll numbers already show defeat for this amendment.

Actually, the polls are all over the place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recogni...ons_in_Indiana

Depending on who you believe, as many as 58% of Hoosiers oppose the amendment, or as many as 62% favor its passage.

The reason I suspect it will pass is that these polls are phone polls. They ask a broad spectrum of people their opinions. This is not a sampling of voters, necessarily. Probably about 98% of the voters are straight. Straight people who support gay marriage do not do so passionately - they just think it's the right thing to do. But straight people who oppose gay marriage are quite passionate in their opposition. These people are crazy. They believe God will reward them some day for their efforts to make life miserable for their fellow citizens.

It is therefore necessary for the defeat of this amendment that a substantial majority of Indianans oppose it. And it is not clear that that is the case here.

[scream4ever]

Last year the polls were dead accurate with the actual results in all 4 states. Another thing that election showed us is that our side now has the enthusiasm advantage, in that we can turn out our side to go and vote. As far as the poll showing 62% support, that was a Republican drafted poll, which is clearly biased. Also, most of the polls done have noticed that when participants are reminded that it would also ban other forms of recognition, opposition increases by several points.

[T-Rexx]

The thing that bodes in our favor is that this will not go to the ballot until November 2014.

That gives us nearly a year for opinion to evolve. And since the evolution of public opinion on this issue has been inexorably in the same, positive direction everywhere, there is hope for a rejection of this nonsense by the Indiana voters. But I think if it went to a vote today, the amendment in Indiana would pass.

We have a similar situation in Ohio. There is a fair chance that Ohio will have in November 2014 a vote on repeal of the 2004 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Polls currently show a slight majority of Ohioans favoring repeal of the ban (~48% to 42%). But I don't think that's a big enough majority to actually pass a repeal. It if went to a vote today, I suspect Ohio would vote to continue banning gay marriage.

November 2014 is a long way away, however, and public opinion may yet get there.

[Kulindahr]

Will you share your perspective with us?

Please!

Indiana is not really as backward as people think - the problem here is people don't get out and vote except in the major elections

I have a friend in Indiana, almost Kentucky, who says gays still get beat up there, and sheriff's deputies purposely show up late if there are any complaints. Sadly, he shrugs and accepts it.

[frankfrank]

Last year the polls were dead accurate with the actual results in all 4 states. Another thing that election showed us is that our side now has the enthusiasm advantage, in that we can turn out our side to go and vote. As far as the poll showing 62% support, that was a Republican drafted poll, which is clearly biased. Also, most of the polls done have noticed that when participants are reminded that it would also ban other forms of recognition, opposition increases by several points.

I think that polls tend to be more accurate in Presidential election years (i.e. Leap Years), because in the interim years it's always difficult to accurately poll in a way that accurately considers those who will actually vote.

I don't think that it would have gone our way in more than one or two of the four states if the voting had happened in 2013 instead of 2012, even though favorability went up during the following twelve months.

[scream4ever]

I think that polls tend to be more accurate in Presidential election years (i.e. Leap Years), because in the interim years it's always difficult to accurately poll in a way that accurately considers those who will actually vote.

I don't think that it would have gone our way in more than one or two of the four states if the voting had happened in 2013 instead of 2012, even though favorability went up during the following twelve months.

Polling typically takes into account "likely voters", which obviously vary based on each year (i.e. the qualifications for a likely voter are different during an election year as opposed to a midterm year).

You may be right about the votes in 2013, although studies have shown that our side now has the enthusiasm gap, and 2014 is by no means an off election year.

[frankfrank]

^ And there's almost a year to go, which may be long enough to get the MAJORITY of Americans covered under equal marriage laws. That's an important benchmark, perhaps enough to "normalize" it for some - certainly NOT all - who would otherwise be unconvinced.

That even friggin' PENSACOLA is recognizing the inevitable, is quite telling.

[Alnitak]

Start of Legislative session canceled

Bad weather will postpone the first day of the session.

[Alnitak]

[Alnitak]

Excellent opinion piece...

Tully: More absurdity in the gay marriage debate

...why are they still talking about putting a prohibition of it in the Indiana Constitution, our state government’s most serious and sacred document? If it’s a third-tier issue, as they now suggest it is, then why waste the legislature’s time on it in the coming months?

These are questions with no good answers, because there is simply no sensible way to answer them. After all, you don’t typically have constitutional amendment debates over non-issues. You don’t often urge voters to alter your state’s guiding document over an issue that makes you shrug.

So what’s really going on...

[Kulindahr]

^
Call it the politics of the irrational.

[scream4ever]

Check out the TV ads from the organization working to pass HJR-6. I'm sorry but these are fucking terrible. They almost seem like parodies:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you...e-america.html

[Ninja108]

Check out the TV ads from the organization working to pass HJR-6. I'm sorry but these are fucking terrible. They almost seem like parodies:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you...e-america.html

So were the Prop 8 ads,yet enough people bought them in the end.

[scream4ever]

So were the Prop 8 ads,yet enough people bought them in the end.

These are nothing like the Prop 8 ads. The theme in these is way too doomsday-esque to the point where it's laughable.

[Alnitak]

HJR 3 has been introduced in the House and will receive a committee hearing on Monday

Smf

[Kulindahr]

Check out the TV ads from the organization working to pass HJR-6. I'm sorry but these are fucking terrible. They almost seem like parodies:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you...e-america.html

"It's my money marriage and I want it now!"

No, these are lamer than that.

[Ninja108]

They have tried giving us reassurances that we can still enter private contracts and other things.
How freakin nice. We have to spend $$$ while a couple that got hammered only has to spend 20-40 dollars and get all the benefits of marriage.
And as we've seen time and time again,many of those contracts that were supposed to protect us don't against bigoted family members and judges.

[Kulindahr]

They have tried giving us reassurances that we can still enter private contracts and other things.
How freakin nice. We have to spend $$$ while a couple that got hammered only has to spend 20-40 dollars and get all the benefits of marriage.
And as we've seen time and time again,many of those contracts that were supposed to protect us don't against bigoted family members and judges.

Heteros can even get married in one state under laws that would make it illegal in another state, then if they later move to that other state their marriage is nevertheless recognized (I just read eighty pages of state court decisions on those starting about 1820....). Even states where it was illegal for anyone of a different skin tone to marry someone white would often honor those marriages contracted in another state -- it took until serious racist laws were passed after WWI for that to change, for the most part. and then a generation to pass until SCOTUS bypassed that issue and just said such laws were invalid on the basis of more fundamental issues.

And BTW, it's that decision which will win this: the Court never talked about "one man, one woman", but they did talk about two citizens.... so it's essentially already there that citizens decide who they can marry (indeed there are gobs of cases where that was the deciding factor for states, including state supreme courts: if the people intended that they were married, then they were married [although I read one odd case where it was ruled that even though a couple never made any statement about intent, the fact that they had lived together as a married couple in one state was enough that the state they later moved to had to recognize them as married]).

[Alnitak]

Watch the House committee debate LIVE

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/house?sf21594109=1

[Alnitak]

Well after about a two hour committee hearing sermon, the House committee will vote at a later time.

[Alnitak]

Freedom Indiana holding a rally at the Indy Artsgarden

[Alnitak]

Hoosiers may find a Freedom Indiana phone banking event this week at this link

http://hq-salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/508...ic/?event_key=

[Alnitak]

Freedom Indiana is urging calls to the governor and says hundreds have already done so.

http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/50806/..._page_KEY=7386

Not sure exactly what this accomplishes. No governor in any of the 50 states and territories plays a part in constitutional changes. It can't hurt I guess. The governor has a lot of persuasive power in single party rule, as most states have now.

[Alnitak]

House Speaker Bosma thinks the vote in committee will be close

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/01/v...age-amendment/

[Alnitak]

[chrisrobin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87uUu...ature=youtu.be

Thanks for this terrific video!

[Alnitak]

Thanks for this terrific video!

I don't know why it didn't embed...

Freedom Indiana is very organized and working hard.

[Kulindahr]

Awesome.

[Alnitak]

There are plenty of opportunities to kill HJR 3 before it ever makes it to the ballot. Right now, all four Democrats on the House committee are expected to vote no, and three Republicans who must join them to kill the resolution are unannounced.

Then the resolution must survive being amended. If it is amended in any way, even one word, then the process must restart and the language voted on again in the next legislature. The linked article above states that stripping the civil union bans is a distinct possibility. In that case, the amendment would be voted on in 2016 in the competitive presidential election, which draws more liberal and young voters, not to mention another three years to change minds.

Also at this point no one has the vote counts in either house, and the resolution can be amended in any of the committees and house debates.

[scream4ever]

I don't know why it didn't embed...

Freedom Indiana is very organized and working hard.

Indeed. They've taken excellent notes from our campaign in Minnesota.

It's looking more and more unlikely HJR-3 will even get out of committee. Bosma has the option to change the committee seats around, but such an action is rarely used and would likely have dire consequences.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...fa770ff8d.html

[Alnitak]

Indeed. They've taken excellent notes from our campaign in Minnesota.

It's looking more and more unlikely HJR-3 will even get out of committee. Bosma has the option to change the committee seats around, but such an action is rarely used and would likely have dire consequences.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...fa770ff8d.html

We'll know Wednesday, which is the next time the committee meets. They have until January 28 at the latest. That is the deadline for bills to come to the house floor.

[Alnitak]

One of the best rundowns on the state's politics surrounding this issue that I have seen.

Gay marriage debate puts squeeze on Indiana House speaker

The speaker's dilemma was exacerbated on Monday when, after nearly four hours of impassioned testimony, the chairman of a critical House committee unexpectedly decided to delay action on the amendment amid concerns about how three undecided Republicans would vote.

Oops they didn't have the votes

Political observers and even some in his own party also say dramatic tactics such as replacing committee members could be harmful to him and the House as an institution. Those moves would be extraordinary — and hard to reconcile with Bosma's repeated declarations that the issue is not a priority.

But have no worries our fearless leader...

The 28-year veteran of the House, who has a poster and coffee mug with the slogan, "Keep calm and carry on," said he can handle the pressure.

[Alnitak]

Despite downplaying the importance of this amendment as a legislative priority, House Speaker Brian Bosma has moved the resolution to a new and totally irrelevant elections committee after it stalled in a previous committee. Of course speakers of most states have dictatorial powers in their chambers, but it is rather extraordinary to see someone like Bosma, with a reputation for even handedness, muscle through a non-priority such as this in this way. If one had to point to a reason, it would likely be the intense pressure by religious conservatives to get one last win before the anti-marriage equality movement is over for good. They are also Republicans... Anyway, I hope it will come back to bite him in the ass some day.

Ind. speaker pushes gay marriage ban by moving bill to ‘friendlier’ committee

Bosma announced Tuesday that the proposed ban and a companion bill would be considered by the House Elections and Apportionment Committee.

---

The House elections panel includes more conservative lawmakers than the judiciary panel, including at least one Democrat who said he would support a ban.

It's not clear if the committee will have to hold a new hearing before a vote, but the gay unions ban is likely assured to pass without being amended. However, the clock is quickly running out. They have until Tuesday next week to send it to the House floor.

[scream4ever]

It could still be amended on the House floor, where as many as 20 representatives (all but one of them Republicans) are considered undecided. Keep in mind too that they have elections this year.

[Alnitak]

It could still be amended on the House floor, where as many as 20 representatives (all but one of them Republicans) are considered undecided. Keep in mind too that they have elections this year.

Freedom Indiana should do what the Medicaid lobby did in Texas, start a PAC and register people against the union ban as Democrats.

[Alnitak]