SJR-7

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

So much to blog, so little time

I actually have things to write about lately, but haven’t geared up to do it. Lets see, where were we when we last tuned in? Oh, yeah, I was probably playing Packrat. Well, the gloss has come off that Facebook game somewhat, as I got collected most of the cards I could get a hold of easily and was stuck gold mining endlessly and hoping the rare cards would pop up for me, which they weren’t. It didn’t help that the developers changed several rules of the game and it’s not quite as fun, and pretty uneven on the fairness scale. And discovering that there are only 100 of the very rare Leopard card that once popped up for me but I couldn’t pick up due to a glitch in the game was disheartening. If only 100 people can win, it kinda sucks.

We’re far behind in wedding planning, but we finally got registered a couple of places. (They’re listed at our wedding page; you can get there from the image on the right.) Of course, we still need to add lots of items to the registries.

Stephanie went to Wyandotte, Michigan for a figure skating competition. We initially thought I’d go with her, but decided not to farm out the dog, so I stayed home and ran some errands and went (gasp) wedding dress shopping. Yes, I’m wearing a dress to our wedding. Don’t act all crazy. It’s the one and only day I will. I can be a princess on my wedding day, even if i don’t want to be any other day. (Okay, I actually own a tiara, so I act like a princess on other days, too. But just while vacuuming.)

Anyways, you may already know this, but wedding dress shopping can be crazy. I only found one thing I liked, and they didn’t have it in my size. You have to make an appointment for a sales person, and there was a 45 minute wait for dressing rooms. At one of the other places, you had to register with them to even set foot in the door. All I wanted to do was look, but they wouldn’t let me. I was planning on going to a few more places, but I think I’ve run down an alternative that, if it works as planned, will complement Stephanie’s dress nicely.

There are lots of other things we need to get in order, but if I start making a list here, I’m get an upset stomach with worry, so I won’t.

In other news – SJR7 – the marriage discrimination amendment is effectively dead at the Statehouse. On Friday, Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City refused to hear the bill in committee, meaning that it’s dead for this legislative session, and they’d have to take at least 4 years to get it through the Statehouse again.

This still doesn’t mean we can get legally married in Indiana, because there is a law on the books saying we can’t. It just means that the state can’t double-plus super deny us marriage. So, you know, that’s nice. Or something. Clearly, we’re getting married anyway. (See above shocking paragraph about me wearing a dress!) We just can’t get a piece of paper from the government saying so, which just seems sort of arbitrarily bitchy of them, when you look at it that way. But the nice Canadian government will give us a piece of paper saying we’re married, which is why we’re honeymooning in Toronto. Those Canadians are darned nice. And Massachusetts will recognized that we’re married with the piece of paper from Canada, but only if we live there. Also California, Vermont and a couple other states will say we’re civil-unioned. Which is like marriage, but without all the same legal rights. So, not really like marriage at all, but basically our own water fountain. Yay! At least we can get a drink. Except not here in Indiana. We don’t even get our own water fountains.

Whatever. I’m thinking pink and lavender gladiolas for my bouquet. What do you think?

Continue ReadingSo much to blog, so little time

marriage discrimination attached to Gov’s Property Tax Bill

Indiana Republican Foul play at work – because looked like SJR-7 the marriage discrimination bill that has failed to pass the Indiana House the last two years, might again fail, Representative Eric Turner, ranking Republican on the House Rules and Legislative Policy Committee, filed a amendment to House Joint Resolution No. 1 (HJR1) a proposed constitutional amendment concerning property taxes.

It’s expected that the Governor’s proposed property tax reform bill, a high-profile piece of legislation, will receive attention and scrutiny. Any threat to it or opposition from Democrats will surely make headlines. However, it’s worth noting that the amendment being discussed is unrelated to property taxes, but it’s being attached to the bill since it’s expected to be approved. This is relevant to homeowners looking for south dallas homes for sale, who may want to keep an eye on any developments in property tax reform.

Don Sherfick of Indiana Equality seems to think that the bill with get a full reading by the House as a result, where Gary Welsh thinks that it will effectively kill the property tax bill, laying the blame for it at the door of House Democrats.

Indiana Equality has a handy lookup form to look up your representatives to give them a call to protest this issue.

Continue Readingmarriage discrimination attached to Gov’s Property Tax Bill

The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette on the Marriage Discrimination Amendment

Courtesy of blueindiana.net, I enjoyed this editorial from the The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette on the plans to re-introduce SJR-7 – the marriage discrimination amendment – into the short legislative session this year (when, of course, there are much more pressing issues like property tax reform that need to be addressed.)

There is no reason for it to pass this year or any year. Indiana has a law that prohibits same-sex marriage. The language of the proposed amendment is murky at best and would create more legal questions than it would answer.

Meanwhile, other states are quietly going the opposite direction from Indiana. Instead of adopting measures that take rights away from citizens, they are expanding rights. In 2007, New Hampshire joined Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey in offering civil unions. And Washington State and Oregon approved domestic-partnership laws to ensure legal rights for same-sex couples. Maine, California and Hawaii already have such laws.

Colorado, Iowa, Oregon and Vermont all banned workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, bringing to 12 the number of states with such anti-discrimination laws on the books. Nearly half of the U.S. population now resides in states that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to Stateline.org, an authoritative Web site that reports involving issues with state governments across the nation.

It is foolish for Indiana, still lagging other states in economic recovery, to consider a measure that would alienate any potential investor. It’s even more foolish to consider such a measure when elected officials should be focused on tax restructuring.

Continue ReadingThe Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette on the Marriage Discrimination Amendment

Julia Carson’s replacement should be LGBT Friendly

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Indianapolis

This is really disturbing – one of the names being discussed as a possibility for Julia Carson’s office by the Democrats is Indiana State Representative Carolene Mays, who voted in favor of SJR-7, the amendment to ban equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. More from Jerame Davis on Bilerico:

The passing of Congresswoman Julia Carson has left a gaping hole in Indiana political life. Julia Carson was a great leader and a strong progressive voice. As we consider her replacement, we should not forget the legacy Julia left and who can best live up to the service she provided and the strong support she gave to the LGBT community.

The winner of the special election to fill her remaining term will likely win the seat in the November general election and go on to serve a full term in Congress. This is not a decision to take lightly. Of the names coming forward as likely replacements, one in particular should infuriate LGBT voters in the 7th District.

Carolene Mays is no Julia Carson. She doesn’t even deserve the honor of being named among the possibilities to replace her and it is a disgrace to think she could live up to the job.

On paper, Carolene Mays looks like the perfect replacement for Julia. Mays is the president and publisher of the Indianapolis Recorder, the paper of record for the African-American community in Indianapolis. She is a 3 term Indiana State Representative. She serves (or has served) on numerous non-profit and foundation boards. She’s won numerous awards for service and she’s even a member of the same church Julia attended.

The area she falls most short of Julia is her support of LGBT Hoosiers. As a State Representative, Carolene Mays voted in favor of SJR-7, the Indiana Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Mays has never disavowed her support of the marriage amendment – an amendment Julia spoke against often – and she has shown no indication she would change her vote if it came before her again.

Carolene Mays is no Julia Carson. Either she’s a shameful political opportunist, who worried more about her political skin than the rights of LGBT citizens or she is a true believer in discrimination against LGBT Hoosiers. Either way, she pales in comparison to the Julia I knew.

We could count on Julia to stand up for us; there was no question. She was a regular presence at our Pride festivals. She’s been lionized by the Stonewall Democrats. She was instrumental in helping Indianapolis move forward with an inclusive human rights law. She voted against DOMA. She supported ENDA.

We cannot count on Carolene Mays for any of these things.

Julia was usually right and stood up for her beliefs. She voted against the war and spoke against both the war and George W. Bush long before it was popular to do so. Her funeral was a panoply of leaders and dignitaries who spoke of the fire and determination Julia had for her issues and her constituents.

If Carolene Mays will kowtow to the religious right over something as non-critical as gay marriage, how can we count on her to make the right decisions when it comes to war and peace or life and death?

Continue ReadingJulia Carson’s replacement should be LGBT Friendly

Regarding SJR-7

I just wanted to say that there are a lot of hard working people who were tireless in getting SJR-7 stopped in its tracks. I’m afraid to start naming them, because I’ll manage to leave someone out – but every single person who was involved in the grassroots effort worked hard – much harder than I did – and I want them all to know that I appreciated everything they did. The people who got Cummins, Wellpoint, Lilly, DowAgro and other big companies to the table – you guys rock.
Of course, the amendment could still be introduced back into the legislature in 2008. But stopping it here was a major blow, and one worth celebrating. There’s no limit to the power of people working together…

Continue ReadingRegarding SJR-7

SJR-7 Died in Committee

  • Post author:
  • Post category:GLBT Issues

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 Language rejected as flawed by ultra-conservative Bork

Bilerico contributor Don Sherffick testified before the recent House Committee meeting on SJR-7, noting that the language for the flawed second paragraph of the bill originally came from an early draft of the Federal version of the amendment – a draft that was later re-written considerably. That revelation caused some comment and concern amongst committee members.

And now Advance Indiana is reporting about why the Fed version was rewritten – Ed Fox has discovered that ultra-conservative Judge Robert Bork realized the ambiguities of the language were too great, and directed the language should be changed.

The question now is whether Indiana Senator Brandt Hershmann chose the flawed original language accidentally, and now just refuses to change it because the process is so far along, or whether he chose it deliberately to restrain the legislature as well as the courts, and is now just lying to his fellow legislators about the consequences of the flawed language.

Continue ReadingSJR-7 Language rejected as flawed by ultra-conservative Bork

Statewide religious coalition speaks out against SJR-7

From iconindiana.org:

Indianapolis – The Interfaith Coalition on Nondiscrimination (ICON) today spoke out against Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR-7) in a letter to the Indiana General Assembly.
The letter, which is signed by 130 Indiana clergy, leaders of faith communities, and other religious professionals, opens with, “Our backgrounds and those of the people we serve vary widely. Our views on marriage differ. But we speak with one voice to oppose amending the Indiana Constitution to define marriage.”
Signatories on the letter to legislators all believe that the Marriage Discrimination Amendment would strip civil rights from committed unmarried couples and undermine the guarantee in the Indiana Bill of Rights for free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions by giving a legal preference to a specific set of religious beliefs. The text of the letter is attached.
“People are growing tired of religious and political leaders using religious teaching to justify discrimination,” said Executive Director Dan Funk. “ICON is identifying, uniting and giving voice to people of faith who believe that religious-based bigotry has no place in the Indiana Constitution.”
ICON, which is based in Indianapolis, is a growing coalition of people of faith in Indiana representing 26 different faith traditions. Members of this coalition believe that each of their faith traditions place great emphasis on the importance of justice. Members also teach that they must respect the inherent dignity of every human being, even those of differing opinions.
Over the past several years, ICON has built a relationship of trust with clergy and people of faith by advocating civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people in a dignified, responsible manner. It is supported by Christian, Jewish, nondenominational, and other responsible religious voices throughout Indiana.
“The debate about SJR-7 is too important for us not to register our very strong concerns,” said Rev. Larry Kleiman, senior pastor of St. Peter’s United Church of Christ, Carmel, and a signatory on the letter. “To impose an opinion in the state constitution which denies constitutional rights to any minority group is an injustice. We simply refuse to stand by and let a very small group of Hoosiers create a very large second class citizenry here in our state.”
ICON is a membership organization concerned about the consequences of intolerance against sexual and gender minorities. It is particularly concerned about religious intolerance and lack of acceptance of God’s diversity. Its purpose is to create positive change through education and social action, so that gay, lesbian, bisexual, intersexed, and transgender people will be able to live in peace and equality.
ICON’s work is directed by 20 congregations and religious organizations, including: Affinity (Indianapolis); Bloomington Friends Meeting (Quaker); Broadway Untied Methodist Church (Indianapolis); Central Christian Church (Indianapolis); Circle Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (Indianapolis); Congregation Beth-El Zedeck (Indianapolis); Eastside Peace & Justice Forum of Cumberland First Baptist Church (Indianapolis); First Congregational Church (Indianapolis); Holy Eucharist Orthodox Catholic Church (Indianapolis); Jesus Metropolitan Community Church (Indianapolis); Lutherans Concerned Central Indiana; North United Methodist Church (Indianapolis); Northeast United Church of Christ (Indianapolis); Plymouth Congregational Church (Fort Wayne); St. Luke’s United Methodist Church (Indianapolis); St. Peter’s United Church of Christ (Carmel); The Church Within (Indianapolis); Unitarian Universalist Church (Bloomington); Unitarian Universalist Church (Lafayette); and Unitarian Universalist Congregation (Fort Wayne).

Continue ReadingStatewide religious coalition speaks out against SJR-7