Indiana State Legislation

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)

A Brief History of Indiana’s Marriage Discrimination Amendment

I try to follow and post about the Indiana’s Marriage Discrimination Amendment every time it’s come up in the Indiana State Legislature, and here is a short history that I’ve been able to cobble together from past posts. This is mainly a testimony to my sketchy blogging more than anything else, as I seem to have often failed to follow up on posting about the outcomes of various bills. I’ll attempt to update this page with more research on bilerico.com and the Indiana legislative archives when I we are not in the middle of a legislative fight and when my internet is a lot more reliable than it is today.

In January of 2014, HJR-6 was re-named HJR-3 and introduced to the House Judiciary Committee. It got stuck in committee because it didn’t have the votes to move, so Brian Bosma moved it to the Elections Committee where it passed.

In January of 2013, HJR-6 (which is now the current bill HJR-3) was filed but never made it out of the House Judiciary Committee. Lawmakers indicated that they preferred to wait until the Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act were announced.

In March 2011, HJR-6 (which is now the current bill HJR-3) was being pushed through the state legislature for the first time. The LGBT Community held a rally to protest it.

In February of 2008, SJR-7 died after Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City refused to hear the legislation in the House.

In January of 2008, Representative Eric Turner, ranking Republican on the House Rules and Legislative Policy Committee, tried to amend a property tax bill to add SJR-7 after it looked like it would never make it out of committee to be heard.

On April 3rd, 2007, SJR-7 died in committee, unable to make it out of the Indiana House of Representative’s Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee.

On March 29th, SJR-7 testimony to the House Committee for SJR-7 revealed that the language in it had been rejected for the federal version of this amendment by Robert Bork because it was too ambiguous.

In the spring of 2007, SJR-7 became was being pushed through a house committee.

On February 8th of 2007, SJR-7 passed the Indiana Senate and was sent to a House committee to be heard.

On January of 2007, SJR-7, an Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment was re-introduced to the State Lesgislature.

On March 8th of 2005, we held a rally to oppose SJR-7, the first wave of an attempt to pass the Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment. This was the language of SJR-7:

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Definition of marriage. Provides that marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Provides that Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Notice the second sentence of that bill – at time, we noted how flawed the language of the second sentence (different language than today’s HJR3, but still really flawed and problematic) was.

Prior to SJR-7 in 2005: There was a great deal of awareness in Indiana that a Marriage Discrimination Amendment was probably coming. There was an attempt to pass one on a federal level in 2003-2004 before the plan was blocked in Senate and the failure of Massachusetts ban on same-sex marriage and subsequent marriages triggered a flurry of activity in red states like our when opponents of same-sex marriage rights realized their days were numbered.

I really think there was a prior attempt at an amendment in the late 1990s or early 2000s, because I recall when I was more politically active in LGBT Fairness that we covered the issue and when we were fighting the state statute. I don’t have specific bill numbers or information about those attempts yet.

Continue ReadingA Brief History of Indiana’s Marriage Discrimination Amendment

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

Indiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)

Bill introduced in the Indiana State legislature this week:

Indiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)

The analysis of this bill by Indy Democrat Blog: “Where to begin? It’s pretty easy. Almost everything in this bill is designed to reduce the power of Democrats in Marion County. From reducing the power of the County Commissioners (the Marion County Treasurer, Assessor, and Auditor) to deleting the At-Large seats on the Council, this bill would, as it stands now, reduce the power of the City-County Council in one majorly blue county.”

This was a bill requested by Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard to try to control the city-county council. It significantly tilts the balance of power in city government to the mayor and gives them unprecedented and unnecessary control of the city. It’s out-of-bounds.

1) Spread the word: Make sure your friends and family know about SB 621 and how it hurts our city by eliminating the independent power of the City-County Council and the elimination of the four at-large Council seats.

2) Call the Mayor: Media reports have made it clear – Mayor Ballard requested this proposal. Call his office and let him know that you oppose SB 621. His number is (317) 327-3601.

3) Call your state representative and senator: This bill will be heard in the Indiana General Assembly – call your state rep at (317) 232-9600 and senator at (317) 232-9400 and tell them you oppose SB 621.

2013 Update: This bill was passed by the Indiana State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Mike Pence.
Continue ReadingIndiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)

HB 1197 – Data Breach Bill

A message from local blogger Chris Soghoian on legislation in the Indiana statehouse:

11 Indiana State Senators will be voting on an important data breach bill next Tuesday (the 12th). This bill (which I helped to draft with my local state representative) will shed a significant spotlight on companies who lose or misplace sensitive consumer financial and other personal information.

The bill, HB 1197, sailed through the house a couple weeks ago, passing 94-0.

Read more about the bill here.

I drove up to Indianapolis on Tuesday to testify in front of a Senate committee, expecting to have just as easy a time. Unfortunately, there were about 10 lobbyists there representing such firms as AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Microsoft who are doing everything possible to kill the bill.

It will be voted on at 9AM on Tuesday the 12th of February, and I’d like to do all that I possibly can to mobilize the blogosphere to pressure the State Senate to pass this bill – and to not gut the pro-consumer provisions in the bill.

I have written up a lengthy blog post on the subject here.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could write a brief post on your blogs, and link to it. Or, if you’re willing to, perhaps write your own more lengthy post on the subject. If you’re interested in calling your state senators, that would be fantastic too.

A few more details on the bill:

We all do business with companies. They know our names, addresses, financial and medical information, mothers maiden names, and social security numbers. This information, if gotten into the wrong hands, can be used to commit identity theft, which can ruin your credit, and make your life miserable.

Unfortunately, some companies do not do the best job in keeping this data safe: It is left unlocked on laptops – which are then lost, or stolen. Computers are not kept secure, and hackers break in, or sometimes upset employees steal the data to get revenge on their employer.

Companies have a duty to tell their customers when they lose our personal data. Indiana passed a law a couple years ago to do that, but unfortunately, it has a few loopholes, which can allow companies to avoid this requirement, or to do it in a way that can be difficult for consumers to find out about.
House Bill 1197 closes the loopholes in the law. It will require that any company that loses customer data tell the state attorney general, and will require that the attorney general post this information online. The info will mention how many Indiana consumers were impacted, what information was stolen, and steps that consumers can take to protect themselves. No personal info (i.e. people’s social security numbers) will be posted by the attorney general – it will be broad info, not on any one individual.

A number of companies have rallied their lobbyists to try and kill this bill. They do not want to have this information online, as it makes them look bad. Consumers should have a right to know what is happening – and by putting these reports onto the Internet, it will be easier for consumers to learn about the problems. It will also be much easier for the press to learn, and then publicize it.
For the last couple of years, New Hampshire has been doing this – and it’s been a huge success. No consumer has suffered as a result of these reports being online in New Hampshire.

Please act now, and stop Microsoft, AT&T and others from killing this bill. Consumers have a right to know when their data is misused or lost.

Continue ReadingHB 1197 – Data Breach Bill

SJR-7 Died in Committee

From numerous sources, but quoting from the Indiana Equality email:

Marriage Discrimination Amendment dies in committee
Indianapolis – Indiana Equality announced today that the Indiana House of Representative’s Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee voted five to five on Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR-7). As a result, the amendment will not be brought for a vote by the full House of Representatives and will not be voted upon by the Indiana General Assembly.

The Indy Star has an article on it.

Advance Indiana breaks down the vote:

Rep. Terri Austin (D)-No
Rep. Scott Pelath (D)-No
Rep. Russ Stilwell (D)-No
Rep. Earl Harris (D)-No
Rep. Bob Kuzman (D)-No
Rep. Randy Borror (R)-Yes
Rep. Ralph Foley (R)-Yes
Rep. Eric Turner (R)-Yes
Rep. Matt Whetstone (R)-Yes
Rep. Dennis Oxley (D)-Yes

Wow, that was brave of the democrats to stand against this – we can’t forget them. I’ll be sending them some flowers, without a doubt.
I’m so happy I could cry.

Continue ReadingSJR-7 Died in Committee

SJR-7 Assigned to Committee

House Joint Resolution 15 (HJR-15), the legislation formerly known as SJR-7 and the marriage discrimination amendment, has been assigned to committee in the house. It’s been placed in the House Rule and Legislative Procedures Committee.

Please contact the members of this committee (information below) to oppose this legislation – for Democrats, remind them that putting this on the ballot in 2008 will kill the Democratic lead in the statehouse, among other things, and that the second line of the amendment will affect all unmarried Hoosiers. Ask them to change the ambiguous and broad wording.

Chair: Representative Scott Pelath (D)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_democrats/repsites/r09/contact.html

Vice Chair: Representative Russ Stilwell (D)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_democrats/repsites/r74/contact.html

Rep. Terri J. Austin (D)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_democrats/repsites/r36/contact.html

Rep. Earl Harris (D)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_democrats/repsites/r2/contact.html

Rep. Bob Kuzman (D)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_democrats/repsites/r19/contact.html

Rep. Dennie Oxley (D)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_democrats/repsites/r73/contact.html

Re. Matt Whetstone (R)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_republicans/homepages/r40/

Rep. Randy Borror (R)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/homepages/R84/

Ralph Foley (R)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_republicans/homepages/r47/

Rep. P. Eric Turner (R)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_republicans/homepages/r32/

Continue ReadingSJR-7 Assigned to Committee

Bias Crimes Legislation Pending Before Indiana House

Bias Crimes Legislation Pending Before Indiana House. Make Your Voice Heard! Tell Your State Representative why Bias Crimes legislation is good for Indiana.

House Bill 1459 (Bias Crimes) authored by State Representative Greg Porter (D-Indianapolis) will be considered by the full House of Representatives during the week of February 19th. HB 1459 amends Indiana’s sentencing law to add the following as aggravating circumstances for persons who commit “bias crimes,” specifically the person who committed the offense knowingly or intentionally:

(A) selected the individual who was injured by the offense; or (B) damaged or otherwise affected property by the offense; because of the color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex of the injured individual or of the owner or occupant of the property.

The proposal also creates a civil action which a victim of a bias crime can institute against a bias crime offender.

In an ugly display of bigotry against Indiana’s minority communities, out-of-state groups have unleashed a hateful and false attack on the bias crimes bill. Opponents of the freedom to live free of persecution are flooding the State House with calls to reject HB 1459.

Please counteract their call in campaign by contacting your legislator. You can contact your Legislators through Indiana Equality here.

Continue ReadingBias Crimes Legislation Pending Before Indiana House

My Thoughts on SJR-7

The SJR-7 legislation to amend the Indiana constitution is going to be heard in committee tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. The committee will meet in the Senate Chambers – 3rd floor of the Indiana Statehouse (200 W. Washington Street in Indianapolis).

Everyone is invited to attend – a good crowd against the legislation will make an impact, so if you can come, please do. There will be an hour of testimony against the legislation. I don’t know if I’ll have a chance to say anything, because they probably have some people lined up to speak already, but if I got a chance, here’s a rough cut of what I might say:

The average Hoosier, if they read this legislation on a ballot, is not going to understand it. They’re not going to realize how flawed the legislation is; that it doesn’t just affect gay and lesbian Hoosiers, but it also affects them. They’re not going to realize that it can invalidate the domestic violence laws that protect them (as it has in Ohio) or that it can repeal their health care benefits if they work for the government, or that it can affect their financial arrangements and their relationships with people they love.

And unfortunately, we are small minority of people. We don’t have the numbers to knock on every door and explain to every Hoosier how damaging this legislation can be not just to us, but to them.

So Hoosiers may see this on a ballot and vote for it out of ignorance.

But you’re not. You legislators know what this amendment really means. You know that it’s considered flawed, because we’ve explained it you you, and we’ve had legal scholars analyze it and tell you. We shown you what’s going on in Ohio, and we’ve testified about how it tears apart gay and lesbian families.

You can’t claim ignorance on this.

So if you vote in favor of this legislation, you’re acting with malicious intent. And we are here to be witnesses to that.
If you wrote this legislation, if you vote for it, if you support and defend it… If you engrave this flawed piece of intolerance into the Indiana Constitution, we’re here to let you know that you’re names will be engraved with it. We’ll etch your names in stone, right next to it, so your legacy will be clear.

So that five years or so from now, when it people see the devastation this causes gay families, and when the average Hoosier realizes how it affects them, too… and when people start to say, “who wrote this crappy amendment?” they’ll have a handy, permanent reference point.

And 50 years from now, when you grandchildren come back to extract this painful piece of bigotry and intolerance out of their constitution like a bad tooth (and I have faith they will, because I believe in the goodness of mankind) they will do so with a sense of shame – because they will see your names – their names – attached to this, and they will know that their parents or grandparents gave them this legacy.

Think about this. 50 or 100 years from now, no one will remember who you are, or what you voted on. They won’t know if you’re good or bad. But they’ll know you voted on for intolerance, because we’ll be standing as silent witnesses to it, and we’ll make sure they remember you for this.

Continue ReadingMy Thoughts on SJR-7