Saturday, February 5, 2011

Some Happenings at the State House

Two of the proposals that I'm most interested in are up for a hearing in the Indiana House and Representatives and the Indiana Senate, respectively.

The Indiana House is hearing HJR0006, which is the resolution that would define marriage in our state constitution. It would be the first time our constitution is used to discriminate rather than promote rights. Indiana Republicans have repeatedly passed this resolution in the Senate several years, but Pat Bauer (D-South Bend), then Speaker of the House, refused to give it a hearing. Current Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) has previously stated that the anti-LGBT resolution is "the most important of the people's business" while on the floor of the House of Representatives.

This joint resolutions goes against both my personal opinion and common sense. My opinion is that rights and privileges should be equally available to all citizens under the law, no ifs, ands, or buts. Any marriage involving two, non-related consenting adults is fine with me.

Common sense says that Indiana law already defines marriage when the state legislature passed it's own versions of the "Defense of Marriage Act". That law was even upheld by an Indiana appeals court.

If a joint resolution passes both houses of the General Assembly with the same language during two consecutive sessions, it then goes to a state-wide vote to be voted for or against by the citizens of Indiana.

A committee will be hearing the resolution Monday, July 7 at 10:30am.

State Senator Mike Delph (R-Carmel) has also introduced an immigration bill that is similar to the Arizona law that was passed in 2010. Passing this law could put us in the middle of a federal lawsuit that could end up bankrupting our state. Regardless of one's opinions on Arizona's law, let's wait until the dust settles instead of charging in head first into enforcing immigration.

Delph's proposed legislation will be heard February 9 at 3:30pm in the Senate Chambers.


  1. I know you are aware of the differences between an Act and a constitutional amendment. Curiously, you do leave that understanding out of most of your discussions on the issue. A constitutional amendment would have a stronger root than Indiana DOMA. Therefore, the push for a constitutional amendment is rooted in common sense and reasonable; even if you disagree with the objective. Further, the upholding by the Indiana appeals court simply leaves the door open for a different angle of attack later. Many attorneys are simply professional circumventors of the law (not all, but many), sooner or later one will find an angle that will effectively chip away at DOMA. This, I think, is what proponents of the amendment are seeking to avert.

    On what grounds do you discriminate against consenting adults who are related?

  2. The joint resolution is to amend the constitution. Passage of the joint resolution twice in two consecutive GA sessions puts it to a popular vote, and passage of it during the election vote puts it in the constitution. I'm sure there's some type of resolution that's proposed to honor citizens and accomplishments and stuff like that, but HJR0006 and it's Senate counterpart are NOT for that purpose.

    As others have said, show me the same-sex marriage that has been illegally performed. It hasn't happened. Indiana is not the type of place to produce a Gary Newsom.

    I think the government has a proper role in regulating relationships that often stem from some sort of abuse, and that children born from these relationships are at a high risk for a variety of diseases and genetic defects simply because of the close relationship between the mother and the father.

    As for the topic of judges, I simply don't see that ever happening in Indiana, at least not within my lifetime. Indiana's courts have consistently (and correctly, in my view), over the years, exercised judicial restraint. There'd have to be a drastic shift in the ideology of state appeals court judges and state Supreme court judges, or more specifically, whoever appoints them, for that to happen.

  3. "My opinion is that rights and privileges should be equally available to all citizens under the law, no ifs, ands, or buts. Any marriage involving two, non-related consenting adults is fine with me."

    These two sentences contradict each other. Which is it, all citizens get equal rights or just non-related adults? At what point, as a society, do we come to the conclusion that if two related people want to marry it should be ok?

    As society keeps progressing downward morally, I'd say, we're getting drastically close to that being an acceptable thing.

  4. Please see my comment at 12:58, April. Incestuous relationships should be discouraged in a civilized society. We have a clear, scientific understanding of what happens when two closely related people choose to reproduce. And all too often, that act of reproduction isn't consensual.

    I also don't buy that society is in a downwards spiral morally. Every older generation has said that about the younger generation. And now, so many people wax nostalgic on those "good ol days" when the at-the-time older generation was decrying the younger generations lack of morals.

  5. I'm just pointing out the contradiction in your statement. You can't have it both ways.

    Also, I'd say, this discussion rarely came up 60 years ago. Evidence of the decline in morality of America.

  6. I simply don't see a contradiction there. The government has a legitimate reason to discourage incestuous relationships. That includes barring incestuous relationships from receiving benefits that come from a civil marriage, and making acts of incest illegal.

    It's important to point out that I'm not proposing a free-for-all anarchy-style hands-off of marriage. Civil marriages and the benefits set up for them are made to be for a couple. It's just to me, I think two men or two women should be able to get the same civil benefits as one man and one woman.

    One only needs to study the early days of rock and roll, including the blues, country, and R&B, to see that the types that go on and on about how immoral the younger generation is aren't new.

  7. It's not the first time our Constitution has been used to discriminate. Ask African-Americans and women!

  8. Look out April! The next thing you know, after we give the homosexuals too much leeway, we'll have to start bowing-down to the demands of the tens of people in this state that might engage in consenting incestuous relationships! Then after they get their way, we will have to worry about the tens of people who fornicate with animals who will want to get married to their animals. It's a scary new world out there, even if that crap has gone on millenniums longer than our country has even existed (and co-equal rights will never be granted to those people anyways).

    People like you, April, who enjoy giving everybody your bigoted, and frankly ignorant, comments always greatly amuse me. "As society keeps progressing downward morally, I'd say, we're getting drastically close to that being an acceptable thing." AHHHHH!! It's so scary out there with our loss of morals! I love when people write such drivel as you did -- these same people are usually so ignorant of American history as to pretend things have gotten so bad over the years when American society is only evolving and not declining. Perhaps you are not ignorant of American history, but judging by your comments, I would politely say you are.

    I hope when you go to the swimming pool or beach, April, that you wear clothing to nearly fully cover your body because the suggestion of skin leads to our great moral decline. I hope when you dress for work or for going-out to a restaurant or nice club that you wear an ankle-length dress with full sleeves and a collar at the neck. I hope if you like to dance that you dance nothing more suggestive than the Charleston or the Twist. If you fail in any of these ways, well then I'm afraid you might be contributing to the moral decline of our country you so plaintively deride.

    After all, you can't have both ways, can you?

  9. Anon 12:39, I am referring to our state constitution. Our federal one, of course, originally had the infamous 3/5ths compromise.


Please see the Indy Student Blog Policies page for the full policy on blog comments. Verification of comments by typing in a random word is required to prevent spam. Due to recent blog inactivity, comments are now pre-screened to prevent spam advertisement.