Indiana

Essential Follow-up Reading on HJR-3

Indy Star — The intrigue behind the curtain cloaking the HJR-3 debate
“When the Indiana Senate cast its vote Monday on the proposed same-sex marriage ban, it all seemed pretty straightforward, even predictable. The vast majority of Republicans voted for the measure and it passed 32-17.

But outside public view, another story was playing out. In the days and hours leading up to the vote, a group of socially conservative senators was plotting in private to kill the marriage amendment.”

Commentary from inside the organization fighting HJR3 on this article: “I read it twice. A lot of it has an element of reality, some is off base. But we’ve got to be ready for 2015. No question.”

Digital Media News — Reporters Notebook: Indiana Senator’s Twitter War A Fascinating Read
“First, some disclosure. In Indiana State Senator Mike Delph’s world, I am a “liberal”. I am not a moderate, independent…nope…I am a “liberal” because I do not agree with his position regarding gay marriage. Second, Delph was punished, in part, for contents of a Twitter war that topped 250 tweets over two or three days best described as a melt-down over the demise of HJR-3 which was a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Indiana. Senate President Pro Tempore David Long has disciplined Delph — taking away leadership roles and even moving his seat — for violating Senate protocol when he tweeted about the same-sex marriage amendment. According to Long’s office, Delph used Twitter to report information, garnered from a GOP private caucus, on the fate of Senate action on House Joint Resolution 3.”

Continue ReadingEssential Follow-up Reading on HJR-3

Zombie HJR-3: Out-of-state groups want to force HJR-3 onto 2014 ballot

According to RTV-6 News – Group may force HJR-3 on 2014 ballot:

Posted: 02/19/2014 Rafael Sanchez
INDIANAPOLIS – A national pro-marriage group is considering whether to take legal action to force HJR-3 on the Indiana ballot in November 2014.

The measure came to a halt on Monday, when the Senate did not return the bill its original status, in which it would impact civil unions.

The National Organization for Marriage tells RTV6 that they met with the House Speaker Brian Bosma on Friday.

“We are building a coalition of the willing and looking for legislators who are willing to join in this task,” said Chris Plante, regional director of NOM.

“We understand it will be heavy lifting, but if we all work together, we believe we have the law on our side. And we believe HJR-3 should go to the people in November 2014 as was promised by legislature on multiple occasions,” said Plante.

Nevermind what Hoosiers want; out-of-state interests are weighing in on what should happen in Indiana, which is at odds with their “states should decide marriage” stance. But anti-gay groups have never been big on consistency.

Continue ReadingZombie HJR-3: Out-of-state groups want to force HJR-3 onto 2014 ballot

The End of HJR-3 for 2014 (with some thoughts on HB-1153)

Because in the past, I’ve been terrible about writing down the follow-up of the Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment, here’s a wrap-up post in case this comes up again in two years – HJR-3 passed through the state legislature, but we essentially “won” because we succeeded in keeping it off the ballot in 2014.

After my January 24th post, the amendment moved to the floor of the House of Representatives on January 27th. Stephanie and I attended the hearing at the Statehouse for that event, where they opted to remove the second sentence of the bill:

“A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

The amendment now reads only “Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.”

This is significant because the second sentence had significant problems of interpretation that made it possible to discriminate against anything that resembled a domestic partnership, and threatened things like powers of attorney, living wills and directives, the ability to visit a same-sex partner in the hospital and other ramifications. Similar language in other states’s bills (Ohio, Kentucky) created problems for same-sex couples.

The companion bill – HB 1153, which was intended to “explain the legislative intent” of the second sentence died quietly in the House of Reps because it was no longer relevant. Did I ever post the content of HB-1153? I don’t recall. But here it is, and it reads as a roster of why the second sentence was a problem:

House Bill 1153
House Bill (H)
Authored by: Rep. P Eric Turner

Introduced Version
HOUSE BILL No. 1153
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 1-1-5.6.
Synopsis: Marriage amendment ballot language. Requires that the question of approval of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage proposed by the 117th general assembly be placed on the 2014 general election ballot if the amendment is agreed to by the 118th general assembly. Prescribes the ballot language for the question. Describes the legislative intent of offering the constitutional amendment.
Effective: Upon passage.

Turner, Thompson
January 9, 2014, read first time and referred to Committee on Judiciary.

HOUSE BILL No. 1153
A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning marriage.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 1-1-5.6 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]:

Chapter 5.6. Marriage Amendment to the State Constitution
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, “marriage amendment” refers to any amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana concerning marriage that was proposed by the one hundred seventeenth general assembly (P.L.231-2011) and agreed to by the one hundred eighteenth general assembly.

Sec. 2. The general assembly intends and establishes that the purpose of the marriage amendment is to restrict the state, through legislative, executive, or judicial action, from creating or recognizing a legal status between unmarried individuals equivalent or substantially similar to marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman. The first sentence of the marriage amendment prohibits the recognition of marriage between persons other than one (1) man and one (1) woman. The second sentence of the marriage amendment prohibits the state from circumventing the mandate of the first sentence by creating or recognizing a legal status equivalent or substantially similar to marriage by a different name.

Sec. 3. The general assembly intends and establishes that the marriage amendment does not prohibit or restrict in any way:

(1) the extension of employment benefits by private sector employers, political subdivisions of the state, or state educational institutions to any beneficiary designated by an employed individual;

(2) the adoption and enforcement of local ordinances granting to any category or class of persons equal opportunities for education, employment, access to public conveniences, access to accommodations, or acquisition of property or to rent property;

(3) an individual from entering into or enforcing terms of a power of attorney, a will, a trust, or another similar lawful agreement or instrument (regardless of name) established for the benefit of another person;

(4) an individual from giving or enforcing a lawful consent or other instrument (regardless of name) that grants powers, rights, or privileges to, imposes obligations on, or provides for the use by or transfer of property to another person;

(5) the protections provided under Indiana’s domestic violence laws or who may qualify for protection from domestic violence; or

(6) action by the general assembly to protect or provide for the property, health, or safety of unmarried persons by appropriate legislation.

SECTION 2. [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE] (a) If the amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana concerning marriage proposed by the one hundred seventeenth general assembly (P.L.231-2011) is agreed to by the one hundred eighteenth general assembly, the amendment shall be submitted to the electors of the state at the 2014 general election in the manner provided for the submission of constitutional amendments under

IC 3.
(b) Under Article 16, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, which requires the general assembly to submit constitutional amendments to the electors at the next general election after the general assembly agrees to the amendment referred to it by the last previously elected general assembly, and in accordance with IC 3-10-3, the general assembly prescribes the form in which the public question concerning the ratification of this state constitutional amendment must appear on the 2014 general election ballot as follows:

“PUBLIC QUESTION #1
Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended by adding the following language to Article 1:

“Section 38. Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”?”.

(c) This SECTION expires July 1, 2017.

SECTION 3. An emergency is declared for this act.

HB-1153 came about to assuage the objections of many legal scholars who had studied the HJR-3 second sentence and its potential effects and pointed out unintended consequences that had already played out in other states with similar language, or that could be raised in Indiana.

The difficulty is that this bill had no teeth at all – it was a piece of legislation, but HJR-3 was an amendment to the Indiana constitution, where it held sway over this bill and potentially trumped it. HB-1153 could be repealed at any time, leaving the full force of the second sentence un-“interpreted” intact to be carried out.

I wonder how much of an impact reading this bill had, actually, on our state legislators. It surely indicated in plain language the many ways that HJR-3 could be interpreted negatively in ways that were punitive toward same-sex couples by our legal system, and spelling out potential discrimination based on HJR-3 that starkly is pretty damning. It may have been intended to remove the sting of HJR-3’s “second sentence” but I think it probably had the opposite effect in that it highlighted all that could go wrong.

After the second sentence of HJR-3 was removed from that bill in the House, HB-1153 was no longer relevant and passed into oblivion a few days later.

The removal of the second sentence in the House was very exciting because it meant that it would be much harder to to get the Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment onto the ballot this fall in time for 2014 elections. It would have to be put back into the bill by the Indiana Senate and then voted on by both the Senate and the House before voters could see it.

So the bill passed to the Indiana Senate Rules Committee on February 13th, where they declined to hear any amendments to add the second sentence back in.

Senate Hearing Rules Committee

There was great drama surrounding the Rules Committee hearing because the GOP caucus met ahead of the hearing, and Senator Mike Delph from Carmel tweeted the results of the caucus meeting – that there were not enough votes to put the second sentence back in – before the hearing happened, alerting the crowd to what was going to happen.

That didn’t sit well with Senator President Pro Tem David Long, the caucus head. It’s bad form for caucus members to reveal caucus business.

Then as the committee began to meet, they opened with an anti-gay prayer by William Hunt, New Life Church, invited by Senate chaplain.

The bill sailed through the committee as is, first sentence only, very quickly, although it was noted by many people that this was considered impossible even six months ago:

Senator Mike Delph went on to spend the weekend tweeting his anger about the GOP caucus electing not to add the second sentence back into the bill, and delivering rather passionate lectures on god, same-sex marriage and the responsibilities of Indiana churches to back legislative efforts.

It was a very entertaining weekend, and I make sure to screen-cap all of it for posterity.

After that great drama, on Monday, January 17th, the Senate passing the amended version of HJR-3, still without the second sentence, through the full Senate.

This was the vote count:

yea nay vote sheet hjr3

The passage almost seemed anti-climatic, except for some really great speeches delivered by Senators on the floor – Jean Breaux, Karen Tallian, Jim Arnold, Tim Lanane, and Greg Taylor all spoke passionately against HJR-3. It was cathartic to hear them. At the end…

Ultimately, HJR-3 isn’t dead. It still could be passed through another state legislature in 2015 or 2016 and be on the ballot in 2016. I’m not sure which version could or would be considered, so it’s worth keeping the text of HB-1153 around in order to remind people about that second sentence and what it could do.

It does seem a lot less likely that the amendment will pass in 2016 with several federal legal battles on the horizon, though.

Washington Post – Race on same-sex marriage cases runs through Virginia:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor is confronting judges with a paradox. On the one hand, the opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and joined by the court’s four liberals noted that defining marriage is traditionally a power reserved for the states.

On the other, the opinion dismissed Congress’s arguments as to why the federal government should recognize only traditional definitions of marriage. It said the arguments were mostly window dressing for unlawful prejudice based on sexual orientation.

State courts and federal judges have embraced that latter reasoning to trump the rights of states, and bans on same-sex marriage have been found unconstitutional since June in New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah. The Utah and Oklahoma decisions are being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, based in Denver.

In effect, said William Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago who follows the issue, the majority’s language in Windsor has been viewed as “permission” for judges “who might already have been inclined” to believe there is a constitutional right to marry.

Given this, 2015 and 2016 are going to be really interesting years, politically.

Continue ReadingThe End of HJR-3 for 2014 (with some thoughts on HB-1153)

HJR-3 to be heard in the Indiana House Monday at 1:30 p.m.

After some committee shenanigans, (in which Brian Bosma moved the bill from House Judiciary committee to the Elections and Apportionment committee when it became clear that it wouldn’t pass the first one) HJR-3 passed out of committee on Wednesday, and will be heard on the floor of the Indiana House on Monday at 1:30 p.m.

If you want to hear a recording of the very moving testimony in the committee, there is a recording of the 4+ hour proceeding here.

Please contact your state representative, and ask them to reject HJR-3.

Here is some information on packing the State House. Stephanie and I will be there to join other Indiana citizens asking legislators to vote no on the bill, and we would love it if you came with us.

If you’d like to contact all of the state legislators in the house and not just your own, here is a cut and paste list of house email addresses. TIP: put addresses in the bcc box – that way, each recipient sees only their email address, not all 100.
h1@iga.in.gov, h2@iga.in.gov, h3@iga.in.gov, h4@iga.in.gov, h5@iga.in.gov, h6@iga.in.gov, h7@iga.in.gov, h8@iga.in.gov, h9@iga.in.gov, h10@iga.in.gov, h11@iga.in.gov, h12@iga.in.gov, h13@iga.in.gov, h14@iga.in.gov, h15@iga.in.gov, h16@iga.in.gov, h17@iga.in.gov, h18@iga.in.gov, h19@iga.in.gov, h20@iga.in.gov, h21@iga.in.gov, h22@iga.in.gov, h23@iga.in.gov, h24@iga.in.gov, h25@iga.in.gov, h26@iga.in.gov, h27@iga.in.gov, h28@iga.in.gov, h29@iga.in.gov, h30@iga.in.gov, h31@iga.in.gov, h32@iga.in.gov, h33@iga.in.gov, h34@iga.in.gov, h35@iga.in.gov, h36@iga.in.gov, h37@iga.in.gov, h38@iga.in.gov, h39@iga.in.gov, h40@iga.in.gov, h41@iga.in.gov, h42@iga.in.gov, h43@iga.in.gov, h44@iga.in.gov, h45@iga.in.gov, h46@iga.in.gov, h47@iga.in.gov, h48@iga.in.gov, h49@iga.in.gov, h50@iga.in.gov, h51@iga.in.gov, h52@iga.in.gov, h53@iga.in.gov, h54@iga.in.gov, h55@iga.in.gov, h56@iga.in.gov, h57@iga.in.gov, h58@iga.in.gov, h59@iga.in.gov, h60@iga.in.gov, h61@iga.in.gov, h62@iga.in.gov, h63@iga.in.gov, h64@iga.in.gov, h65@iga.in.gov, h66@iga.in.gov, h67@iga.in.gov, h68@iga.in.gov, h69@iga.in.gov, h70@iga.in.gov, h71@iga.in.gov, h72@iga.in.gov, h73@iga.in.gov, h74@iga.in.gov, h75@iga.in.gov, h76@iga.in.gov, h77@iga.in.gov, h78@iga.in.gov, h79@iga.in.gov, h80@iga.in.gov, h81@iga.in.gov, h82@iga.in.gov, h83@iga.in.gov, h84@iga.in.gov, h85@iga.in.gov, h86@iga.in.gov, h87@iga.in.gov, h88@iga.in.gov, h89@iga.in.gov, h90@iga.in.gov, h91@iga.in.gov, h92@iga.in.gov, h93@iga.in.gov, h94@iga.in.gov, h95@iga.in.gov, h96@iga.in.gov, h97@iga.in.gov, h98@iga.in.gov, h99@iga.in.gov, h100@iga.in.gov

Carol Trexler testifying
Carol is undergoing chemo for cancer and came to the Statehouse after going through chemo that morning. She testified about having to have her healthcare paperwork with her at all times because hospital workers don’t recognize her wife as a health care representative.
Staff Sgt. Scott Spychala Removed from Hearing
Staff Sgt. Scott Spychala, a 20-year veteran of the US armed forces, was removed from the hearing for giving a silent “thumbs down” signal at the lies being told during testimony from the proponents of HJR-3

A fine way to thank someone for serving his country
More info on Staff Sgt. Scott Spychala and his silent protest.

HPI Analysis: Bosma defends 2d sentence, McNamara opposes
NASHVILLE, Ind. – The second sentence of the constitutional marriage amendment has been endorsed by House Speaker Brian Bosma, while State Rep. Wendy McNamara is saying she won’t vote for the resolution if it remains. “If an amendment were to be brought up to remove the second sentence I will fully support this resolution,” said McNamara, R-Mount Vernon, in a prepared statement. “If the second sentence remains, I will not support the resolution.”

How Indiana’s Proposed Marriage Referendum Would Devastate The Gay Community
Psychologists have studied the emotional impact of marriage referendums like our on same-sex couples and their families and determined that the level of stress in inflicts is terrible.

To celebrate the hate, Governor Mike Pence threw a special luncheon for the supporters of HJR-3 to congratulate them.

Brian Bosma and the Marriage Amendment

How a Bill Shouldn’t Become a Law – Sheila Kennedy
Regarding HJR3 – “Even more incredibly, the Speaker has scheduled the new committee’s vote for tomorrow. The vote will be taken without the benefit of evidence or testimony–but then, as we’ve seen, the Speaker considers evidence and testimony irrelevant. The only thing committee members need to to know is what the Speaker wants them to do. Usually, the power plays and the wheeling/dealing is done behind the scenes. This time, that wasn’t possible. This time, everyone got to see what is seldom on public display: the House leadership’s absolute contempt for democracy and the rules of fair play.”

Continue ReadingHJR-3 to be heard in the Indiana House Monday at 1:30 p.m.

Todd Rokita embarrasses Indiana twice (at least)

Indiana State Representative Todd Rokita (R) has been making the news cycles recently to discuss his ignominious role in the government shutdown. He’s blissfully unaware of how ridiculous he sounds in this soundbite that gets prominent discussion on The Daily Show yesterday evening:

But what takes the cake is Rokita’s sexist remarks to a CNN anchor during a discussion of the government shutdown. At one point, Rokita dismisses Carol Costello’s questions with the remark “You’re beautiful, but you need to be honest.”

Lovely. If we’re remarking on people’s appearances, Todd, I have a thing or two to say about how you look.

Not to be outdone by Rokita, Indiana Representative Marlin Stutzman had this to say:

“We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

Continue ReadingTodd Rokita embarrasses Indiana twice (at least)

Go Ahead and Play Project by the Women’s Fund of Central Indiana

UPDATE: Here’s a cool promo video for the Go Ahead and Play Project.

I’m very pleased to have contributed to a fun local public art project organized through The Women’s Fund of Central Indiana – the Go Ahead and Play project.

Women's Fund Go Ahead and Play Project

Go Ahead and Play will place 20 pianos, all transformed into works of art by local Indiana artists, throughout Indianapolis in public spaces and in neighborhoods of organizations serving women and girls in central Indiana. Pianos will be in place August 1 – 18, and people will be encouraged to sit down and play to their heart’s content.

Women's Fund Go Ahead and Play Project

The project is part of the Women’s Fund’s “GO: Give Back” program, which teaches philanthropy and leadership to young people. Go Ahead and Play was led by children in 6th through 12 grade, they made decisions about what the project would be and how it would work, guided by parents and by Women’s Fund volunteers.

Women's Fund Go Ahead and Play Project

Our piano was decorated with knitting and crochet pieces, creating a “piano cozy” in shades of pink. Organized by the Yarnburners and led by Annette Marino, we knitted and crochet and then sewed together and attached the various panels to create a warm and homey piece.

I’ll have more photos of the finished piano after the opening reception where we get to see all of the completed work from various artists.

Continue ReadingGo Ahead and Play Project by the Women’s Fund of Central Indiana

What DOMA means for Indiana: nothing changes, but everything changes

I have not yet begun to fight

Both the ACLU (our friends!) and the Indiana branch of the American Family Association (not our friends at all!) are noting that the DOMA decision by the Supreme Court doesn’t have any direct effect on same-sex marriage in Indiana, according to the Indy Star.

Indiana has a law on the books banning same-sex marriage, and a marriage discrimination amendment (HJR-6) to the state constitution is currently half-way through the legislative process. It will need to be voted through the state legislature and approved by the governor a second time before it can go on Indiana’s ballot.

Technically, it is true that DOMA doesn’t have a direct effect, but the fall of (part of) DOMA is the an important domino to fall in achieving marriage equality in Indiana. The SCOTUS ruling on DOMA today means Indiana and other states where same-sex marriage is not yet recognized will have room to make a case for discrimination on the necessity reciprocity of the law from one state to another. The portion of DOMA that restricts recognizing same-sex marriages from one state in other states is still in place. But given today’s ruling, it’s hard to imagine that it will remain in place for very long, because even before the ruling came down, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was asking pointed questions about DOMA being a question of gender discrimination.

In reality, the only serious barrier that remains now between married gay Hoosiers and legal marriage recognition is the state of Indiana and Hoosier opinion, not the Federal Government. They only thing stopping us now, realistically, is something that WE LGBT HOOSIERS can affect, and something that only we can affect. The fight is now up to us, and it’s a battle we can win, because it’s a battle for hearts and minds in Indiana, where we live, and where we can reach the fight. It’s no longer a fight across the country, or a fight in Washington, D.C. It’s a fight on our home turf.

Back in February Indiana lawmakers were saying that they wanted to wait on pursuing the second have of the Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment (HJR-6), because they wanted to see if the ruling was broad or narrow. They were being canny; they suspected that the courts would rule on a narrow change in DOMA and leave the rest of it in place. But I do think it’s a sign of something else as well.

I really believe that the will to tackle this by our State Legislators is going to wane rapidly, even though they are saying something different in the news this morning. I think that Republican lawmakers, even those in Indiana, are going to realize more fully in the days and weeks to come that they are in the wrong side of this fight, and that it’s not a question of if, but a question of when.

We have beat back this amendment several times over the years. Certainly that was with the help of powerful friends on the Democratic side of the aisle and we don’t have those numbers with us after the last several elections, but we do still have the power of large corporations in Indiana who have stood with us time and again because they understand that they can’t attract a strong workforce in an uneducated and intolerant state. I think if we can get some powerful visuals in place, the average folks in Indiana will start to make the idea unpopular.

As noted at the tail end of the Indy Star’s article on how DOMA affects us:

Ball State University’s Hoosier Poll last fall found Hoosiers evenly split over whether same-sex marriages should be legal. But a majority supported legalizing civil unions and opposed changing Indiana’s constitution to ban gay marriage.

The second sentence of Indiana’s Discrimination Amendment is what will kill the bill – “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” That goes towards animus, and falls afoul of today’s DOMA ruling. It will be the key to beating back this amendment in the state legislature next year, and falling short of that, changing the hearts of Hoosiers across the state.

Continue ReadingWhat DOMA means for Indiana: nothing changes, but everything changes

BMV seeks ‘clarity’ on Indiana Youth Group license plates

Despite the fact that a recent judge’s ruling determined that the state improperly revoked IYG’s specialty license plate, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is asking for ‘clarity’ on the issue, before resuming sales of the specialty plate that both benefits the Indiana Youth Group and earns the State additional tax revenue.

Indiana Youth Group License Plate

I’ve written about this issue before: homophobes in Indiana’s State Legislature have attacked the IYG plates using a two-pronged approach: 1) through state legislation designed to re-write the specialty plate program to exclude the gay youth advocacy organization, and 2) directly by ordering the BMV to stop issuing plates. The BMV complied with the order from legislators by finding a technicality in their own unclear instructions for distributing plates and claiming that IYG violated that rule. Unfortunately other non-profit organizations were caught in the State Legislature’s homophobic cross-fire and had their plates revoked due to the same technicality. Fortunately saner heads in the judicial system prevailed and the BMV were ordered to recind their block on the specialty plates.

It’s fascinating(ly ironic) that the BMV is asking for ‘clarity” given that they have been trying to obscure application information and obstruct IYG’s application for a specialty plate since they first applied for plates in 2009. After being turned down for unclear reasons TWICE, IYG finally sued to get the rules to be made clear for applications with the help of the ACLU in 2010.

After they successfully got a clear understanding of the rules and proved that they met them, they were issued plates – only to have the Indiana State Legislature locate a technicality to get their plates revoked, again through unclear language in the rules about distributing plates.

Where do thing stand now? It’s unclear:

“This does not shut the door at all on IYG getting their plates back,” BMV spokesman Josh Gillespie said. “We’re just looking at some further clarity on some issues that we felt were a little ambiguous.”

Nice that the BMV wants clarity. (Now) To bad they weren’t helpful with that over that for the last 4+ years of this process. But when your homophobic agenda depends on being unclear, it’s not surprising. Presumably those of us who purchased and were issued IYG plates can continue to renew them, but they aren’t resuming new sales right now, until they have clarity.

What could happen in the future:

Even given this judicial ruling, and if the “clarity” happens through the judicial system, the homophobes from the Indiana State Legislature have left themselves a back-door way to eliminate the plate in the future in the form of legislation they passed in the 2013 legislative season.

The Indiana state legislature passed House Bill 1279 in 2013 which states (in digest):

Special group, disabled Hoosier veteran, and National Guard license plates. Creates the special group recognition license plate committee consisting of eight members of the general assembly, and specifies that the primary purpose of the committee is to make recommendations to the bureau of motor vehicles (bureau) regarding special group recognition license plates (plate). Specifies the criteria to be met by a special group for the issuance of a plate. Specifies procedures for continued participation in the special group recognition license plate program by a special group, including sales and renewal requirements. Provides that a person who is an active member of the Army or Air National Guard may apply for and receive one or more National Guard license plates. (Current law requires that the person must be an active member of the Indiana Army or Air National Guard.) Requires the bureau to design a National Guard license plate. Removes the restriction that not more than two disabled Hoosier veteran license plates may be issued to one person. Makes conforming amendments.

Emphasis is mine, and yeah, that language I highlighted is pretty telling – they’ve set up a committee for rubber-stamping specialty group plates, and some criteria that they can manipulate in the future to exclude IYG and potentially other groups they don’t agree with. So even if the judge ‘clarifies’ the rules, the Indiana State Legislature can change the rules in the future on a whim.

Here is hoping that the homophobes will be too embarrassed by their bigoted, bullying behavior targeting teenagers to continue down this path in the future.

Continue ReadingBMV seeks ‘clarity’ on Indiana Youth Group license plates

The 25th Annual Circle City Pride Celebration, June 8th

The Circle City Pride Celebration is a week of events, culminating in the Pride Parade and Festival on Saturday, June 8th. Visit their site for a list of the events; there’s lots to do this year throughout the week. But definitely the highlights are the parade and festival on Saturday.

The Cadillac Barbie Pride Parade kicks off at 10 am on Massachusetts Avenue and winds through downtown to the festival site at the American Legion Mall. There are over 100 groups marching in the parade and thousands of spectators. Come early to get a good spot – people begin assembling for the parade at 8:30 am. (I’ll be marching with city-county council member Zach Adamson’s group this year).

Indy Pride

The Circle City Pride Festival gates open at 11 a.m on Michigan street. The festival stretches 3 city blocks, and hosts over 300 vendors and dozens of different entertainers during the course of the day.

Indy Pride

Over the 25 years that this event has been going on, the Pride Celebration has been transformed from a small community event to a diverse state-wide gathering of thousands of people from all walks of life. Today the parade and festival have an estimated attendance of 80,000 people, with events going on all week long. The Indianapolis Star as a nice article about the 25 year history of the pride celebration that’s very worth reading. I was one of the attendees at the first pride celebration on the circle in 1988. I drove down with friends from Ball State to set up a booth for Ball State’s LGBT Student Association, now called “Spectrum.” It was held on the Circle the first few years, attended by several hundred people and lots of protestors.

I think the Pride organizers have done a fantastic job of growing the festival, and of making the event worthy of a city the size of Indianapolis. I’ve been a part of organizing events like this in the past – it isn’t easy and there are lots of details to chase down. I have a lot of respect for what the organization has been able to build over the years. I’m excited for this year’s event; it promises to be bigger and better than years past.

Continue ReadingThe 25th Annual Circle City Pride Celebration, June 8th

Anti-Gay Churches will not have booths at Pride this year

Circle City Pride - 25 years

After meeting with concerned LGBT citizens and with the two churches who had purchased vendor booths for the 25th Circle City Pride Festival this year, the organizers of Indy Pride have decided to return their booth fees and decline their attendance at the festival.

I’m very glad that this has been worked out, and that these two churches will no longer have a platform at the Indy Pride celebration to promote a “convert or go to hell” religious agenda. That was my main concern in writing about this issue. So often when LGBT people come out of the closet, they lose their spiritual anchor at the same time because their church doesn’t support who they really are. For those folks who might seek out other religious organizations to be a part of, they should have a reasonable expectation that churches with booths at the Pride celebration would be nurturing and supportive of them as LGBT people. And most of them do fit that criteria – but these two organizations skated under the radar, unfortunately.

According to a facebook post from the Indy Pride organizers:

Yesterday, members of the Indy Pride, Inc. Board of Directors along with a former Board Member, met with representatives of Castleview Baptist Church and A.C.T for the Gospel, Inc. along with concerned citizens who have raised questions about the participation of these organizations as vendors at the Circle City IN Pride Festival.

It was a very cordial discussion where the remonstrators were able to present their issues, and then both organizations were able to respond. It was then followed by a wide ranging discussion that was very insightful and reached beyond the narrow focus of the meeting, and in the end, everyone involved was grateful to be able to have the opportunity to sit down and discuss this matter at length.

After careful consideration and the exercise of due diligence in making our decision, the Board of Directors of Indy Pride, Inc. has decided it is in the best interest of the patrons of our Festival, the vendors themselves, and the Board to terminate the registration of these two vendors.

This decision is not one we have made lightly. Our mission is one to both honor the history of and celebrate the diversity in the LGBTQ community, so that we can create unity between members of our community and beyond. This sometimes means we allow in voices that may not be in agreement with our own. However, in the end, we made a decision based on the safety of everyone involved, and we are making steps to formalize a process to handle these matters in the future.

Nicholas A. Murphy,
President,
Indy Pride, Inc.

I’m a little concerned that some board members are framing their decision as a public safety issue, rather than as a decision based on the incompatibility of these two churches with the fundamental meaning and goals of the Pride celebration. There was an implication that threats of violence were coming from people inside the LGBT community, which is disappointing, to say the least. I hope that if there were overt threats that they’ve been passed along to the police department to deal with.

I also hope that festival organizers will consider putting in place the suggestion of a “core beliefs” document that vendors would have to sign with their booth application, so that groups that have an agenda harmful to the LGBT aren’t able to get booth space in the future.

Continue ReadingAnti-Gay Churches will not have booths at Pride this year