News

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)

How Marriage Equality Opponents’ Three National Strategies All Contradict Each Other

From Think Progress: How Marriage Equality Opponents’ Three National Strategies All Contradict Each Other.

At the federal level, opponents currently have three proposed strategies for rolling back some of the recognition that same-sex couples now have. Particularly in the wake of the Utah and Oklahoma decisions, groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Family Research Council (FRC) have been emphasizing two talking points: that states should have the right to establish their own definition of marriage and that the religious views of people who oppose marriage equality should be protected. Each of the three proposed strategies would limit same-sex marriage to a certain extent according to these talking points, but the principles that inform each strategy are in conflict with each other.

Good read for understanding the strategy. Or lack thereof.

Continue ReadingHow Marriage Equality Opponents’ Three National Strategies All Contradict Each Other

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.

The Pope’s “new stance” on homosexuality

Let me do the TL;DR up front – it’s the same as the old stance.

Several new stories have come out today about a recent interview Pope Francis did where he expanded on his comments from July on homosexuality and women’s roles in the church. I’ll link to some articles about what he had to say in a moment, but first I want to say this – my issue with what he’s saying is the same as it has been since July – it’s all PR and no substantive change. The articles note specifically that “The pope’s comments don’t break with Catholic doctrine or policy, but instead show a shift in approach, moving from censure to engagement” and that “The catechism, the Catholic Church’s book of official doctrine, condemns homosexual acts, but says gays and lesbians ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.'”

That is not real change. Not at all. For gay people, we need concrete, specifics, and here’s why:

Here’s the story, for the first time I’ve ever told it in any explicit detail, on why I quit attending the Catholic Church just after college, way back in the dark ages, back in 1992. At that time, I went directly to the priest that was in charge of my mother’s church and asked him straight out what the church’s policy on gay people was. I had begun “coming out” in 1987, and in the years after that I fought with my mom tooth and nail over going to church. In July of 1992, this specific paper was released by John Paul II on gay people and the Catholic church [Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons] and it was discussed in some of the gay newspapers at the time. I looked it up at the library, made a copy of it, and took it to the priest of my mom’s church Our Lady of Grace in Noblesville, Indiana. This specifically bothered me:

1. The letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions”; the latter are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved of” (No. 3).

2. Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of the (aforementioned) declaration …, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it “neutral or even good,” the letter goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (No. 3).

I told the priest that I was gay, that I intended to fall in love with and marry a woman someday. I wanted to know, specifically, what that meant in relation to the church.

The priest told me, straight up: “You will not be welcome in the church if you maintain a sinful lifestyle without any remorse or desire to change your behavior. We expect you to not engage in sexual behavior with women, to confess to your sins in confession, do penance for them, and to be celibate before you would be allowed to take communion. If you don’t, you will be able to attend mass with your family on holidays, but you won’t be allowed to take communion. If you regularly attend church without going to confession or renouncing your sinful behavior, we wouldn’t continue to welcome you in the church on a weekly basis, and we would ask you to stop attending.”

That told me everything I needed to know about where I stood with the Catholic Church, and other than attending on holidays with my family for the sake of family harmony, I haven’t been back.

This is still the Catholic Church’s position.

Nothing in the interviews Francis has given in July or now changes what I was told by my priest back in 1992. What Francis is saying is basically “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” They aren’t going to inquire what I’m doing with my wife under the covers, but it’s still considered a sin. My wife and I still aren’t considered a family to them, and if we were a part of the church, they would expect us to keep our relationship on the downlow. I imagine if I went to confession and told them that I regularly have sex with my wife, they would be forced to confront the issue somehow, and what would come out of it would be exactly what I was told back in 1992, more or less. They might not tell me never to come back, but they would still think my romantic relationship with my wife is a sin.

CNN’s coverage of the interview:

Pope Francis said the church has the right to express its opinions but not to “interfere spiritually” in the lives of gays and lesbians, expanding on explosive comments he made in July about not judging homosexuals.

In a wide-ranging interview published Thursday, the pope also said that women must play a key role in church decisions and brushed off critics who say he should be more vocal about fighting abortion and gay marriage.

Moreover, if the church fails to find a “new balance” between its spiritual and political missions, the pope warned, its moral foundation will “fall like a house of cards.”

And a summary of his remarks from the New York Times:

Pope Francis, in the first extensive interview of his six-month-old papacy, said that the Roman Catholic Church had grown “obsessed” with preaching about abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he has chosen not to speak of those issues despite recriminations from some critics.

In remarkably blunt language, Francis sought to set a new tone for the church, saying it should be a “home for all” and not a “small chapel” focused on doctrine, orthodoxy and a limited agenda of moral teachings.

“It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time,” the pope told the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, a fellow Jesuit and editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal whose content is routinely approved by the Vatican. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

Pope Francis

As I was going over this post, I did a bit of looking through things I’ve written or noted here on this blog about the Catholic Church and the crazy, offensive and hostile things they’ve done over the years. Here’s a short list of bullshit the Catholic Church has been up to in the time I’ve been keeping this blog… Interesting how much Pope Francis’s new statements resemble that link that I posted in November of 2006.

Continue ReadingThe Pope’s “new stance” on homosexuality

Documenting the increasing violence towards LGBT people in Russia

In June 2013, Russia passed draconian new laws targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, which have led to roving bands of neo Nazis and Russian military groups attacking, torturing and killing gay people. Attacks against individuals perceived to be gay or lesbian are on the rise over the last several weeks.

Gay Teenager Kidnapped And Tortured By Russian Neo Nazi Group Is Believed To Have Died From His Injuries (Video)
Trigger warning – the video at this link and photos are very disturbing.

Brutal Russian anti-gay vigilantes abduct, attack suspected “pedophile”
Trigger warning – this video is very disturbing.

Another video of a brutal anti-gay attack.
Trigger warning – this video is very disturbing.

Videotaped Bullying Of Gay Russian Youths Highlights Growing Homophobia
OSCOW — Some show youths being forced to drink urine, or having it poured over their heads. Others show young men being taunted with phallic sex toys, threatened with axes, and forced to carry wooden crucifixes. These are just a few of the images contained in a series of shocking videos filmed by a nationalist gang in Kamensk-Uralsky, an industrial town of 175,000 inhabitants in Russia’s Sverdlovsk Oblast near the Ural Mountains.

Change.org Petition to Add Russian LGBT Rights Violators to Magnitsky’s List
According to the adopted by US Congress Magnitsky’s Act, anyone who has committed a gross human rights violation against a whistleblower or someone trying to exercise or promote universally recognized human rights (such as freedom of expression) could be put on Magnitsky’s List. Thus such individuals would be denied entry to the USA and US financial institution would freeze their assets worldwide. By signing this petition, we hereby request to include these two individuals on Magnitsky’s List effective immediately.

Russia: MP calls for law allowing gays to be whipped in public squares

Stonewall UK issues update and advice on LGB & T human rights abuses in Russia

Russia: Orthodox priest who supported pro-gay punk band Pussy Riot found stabbed to death

Boycotts of products produced in Russia are having some effect, but the outbreak of violence is on the increase, and discussion of lobbying for boycotts of the Winter Olympics, or calls for the Olympics to be moved from Russia are being discussed more widely.

LGBT activists urge boycott of Winter Olympics due to Russia’s anti-gay laws

Change.org Petition to Relocate the 2014 Winter Games to Vancouver

NY Times, Frank Bruni: Striking Olympic Gold
As for an American boycott of the Olympics, it would punish athletes who’ve been training and dreaming and sacrificing for years. It might redirect the conversation from how Russia treats gays to whether the United States overreacted.

New York Elected Officials Call On Obama To Spurn Putin Over Anti-Gay Oppression

New Yorker: A Terrible Time To Be Gay In Russia

Continue ReadingDocumenting the increasing violence towards LGBT people in Russia

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

Decision Day: DOMA and Prop-8 Fall

Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment..

Link to the decision: UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

From SCOTUSblog:

So does this mean that I’ll be able to file joint taxes with my wife? From Amy: Yes. Perhaps for the first time ever, many people will be eager to file their taxes next April 15.

And Prop 8 fails, too!

Link to the decision: HOLLINGSWORTH ET AL. v. PERRY ET AL.

From SCOTUSblog:

Here’s a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

And a good analysis of what the end of DOMA means for married gay couples:

The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act means that gay married couples will have access to the federal benefits now enjoyed by other marrieds.

These benefits include tax breaks, Social Security benefits and estate planning advantages that until now were denied gay couples, even if their marriages were recognized under state law.

Among other things, gay marrieds will now be able to:

  • claim Social Security benefits based on a spouse’s working record and qualify for survivor benefits.
    fund an IRA or Roth IRA for a nonworking spouse.
  • split a retirement fund or other assets without triggering tax bills if they divorce.
  • exempt health care benefits for a spouse from their federal income.
  • bequeath their estate to a spouse without triggering potential federal estate taxes.

These gains may come with a cost: as NerdWallet puts it, “federal income tax brackets are in fact easier on high-income individuals than they are on most high-income married couples.” NerdWallet figured that same-sex couples earning more than $146,000 may see their tax bill go up by over $1,000.
One of my gay friends, a financial planner, just posted to her Facebook page that her taxes are likely to go up by several thousand dollars. But she was happy, as she put it, to “take one for the team.”

The Supremes
Thanks, Supremes!

Continue ReadingDecision Day: DOMA and Prop-8 Fall

ACLU takes Indiana BMV back to court over IYG Plates

The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it is take the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles back to court over their refusal to begin re-issuing new IYG license plates.

Here is the press release by the ACLU about this recent action: IYG v. BMV 6-19-2013 [PDF]

Text of the release:

Indiana Youth Group Fights Back

BMV’s involvement in its own review “violates due process and is unconstitutional” says ACLU of Indiana

Indianapolis –The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana today on behalf of the Indiana Youth Group filed a lawsuit challenging the authority of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles to issue an Order of Remand on its Administrative Law Judge’s order to restore IYG’s specialty license plate. The ACLU of Indiana seeks to void the order and ensure that proceedings are performed by a “neutral and impartial” decision maker.

“The BMV commissioner acting as the appellate and final authority over a decision that he, in effect, issued, violates the right to have an impartial decision maker in administrative adjudications and therefore violates the fundamental principle of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment,” said Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana Legal Director.

On Friday, June 14, BMV commissioner R. Scott Waddell issued an Order of Remand effectively reversing the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, who had ruled in May that the State violated the IYG’s specialty license plate contract when it issued a suspension of the plate last year without giving the nonprofit the required notice and a chance to correct any issues. The AL J also found that IYG’s actions did not constitute a sale of low-digit specialty plates, as 20 Indiana State Senators had claimed in March of 2012. These state senators asked the BMV to terminate IYG’s contract after they had been ineffective in passing legislation to that effect.

ACLU of Indiana Executive Director Jane Henegar said, “IYG does admirable work providing guidance to young people. IYG wants what has been denied at every turn in its quest to obtain a specialty license plate in support of its work: fair treatment by our government. The ACLU of Indiana hopes to help put an end to an unnecessarily lengthy and contentious process that has done nothing but stand in the way of real help for children in need.”

Mary Byrne, IYG executive director, said she feels as though the BMV “is just being vindictive.”

“There was nothing ambiguous in the administrative law judge’s ruling,” said Byrne. “The BMV had a chance to present its side at the administrative hearing, and they lost. The BMV simply does not want IYG to get its plate back, ever.”

Indiana Youth Group, Inc. v. R. Scott Waddell, Case no. 1:13-cv-00981-JMS-MJD, was filed June 19 in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Related articles that account the ongoing saga:

IYG versus BMV-6-19-2013

Continue ReadingACLU takes Indiana BMV back to court over IYG Plates

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

Anti-gay churches have booths at Indianapolis Gay Pride event

2013-05-29 UPDATE: According to a facebook note from the Indy Pride Organizers, These two churches will no longer have booths at this year’s Pride celebration.

Last year and for the past few years apparently, there have been two churches from Indianapolis — Castleview Baptist Church and A.C.T. For The Gospel — who have had booths at the Indianapolis Pride Celebration and who have marched in the Pride Parade, with the purpose of trying to convert LGBT people from the “sin” of homosexuality. Unlike many churches in Indianapolis who are affirmative and supporting of gay and lesbian people, these two churches have a secret agenda for appearing at Pride: telling LGBT people they are sinners. These same two churches have reserved booth space at this year’s Pride Festival as well.

The issue was recently brought to the attention of the gay and lesbian community by Rev. Marie Siroky, a minister in the United Church of Christ and leader of Interfaith Coalition on Nondiscrimination (ICON), a multi-faith organization of faith communities and leaders advocating for LGBT equality and justice in Indiana. Siroky raised the issue on the facebook page for the group Indiana Equality, where she shared some examples of the two churches problematic beliefs.

A.C.T. For the Gospel’s blog post on “converting” gay and lesbian people:

June 9th, 2012 we had a booth for the second year at the Indy Pride Festival. We had great conversations with several people. We focused on heart issues rather than singling out any specific sin. Our goal was not to win arguments, but to win souls for the kingdom. That does not mean that we affirmed any sin, but we lovingly addressed what we all have in common (our need for a savior).

We had a button this year that helped start conversations. You can click here to see the art work. We addressed the heart issue of pride and our need to humble ourselves before the almighty God. There were at least four people that prayed to be born again, confessing Jesus as their Lord and asking Him for victory over their sin. {emphasis added}

There were many other great conversations. Our Lord was lifted up.

Click here for a short video on how and why we developed the button.

ACT Church's Anti-Gay Button
Note the fine print – “Pride goes before destruction”

The video referenced in the blog post quoted above is this one – on it you can see why this organization isn’t friendly to LGBT people.

Eric Bancroft, senior pastor at Castleview Baptist Church in Indianapolis, also has a problematic paper trail on the internet that illustrates why this church shouldn’t be marching in Gay Pride Parades or having outreach booths at our Festival. Bancroft participated in a Prop 8 panel discussion at Southern Baptist Thelogical Seminary called Marriage in a Post Prop. 8 Culture and shared some thoughts on gay marriage that are very disturbing to say the least. There isn’t a transcript and I wasn’t able to embed the video, but you can view it at the link. I’ll watch the whole thing in the morning and transcribe Bancroft’s remarks and add them here. The video is 48 minutes long, so be prepared for a long and painful slog as you watch it. Wear some teflon.

I can see how these problematic churches would slip by Pride Organizers. They probably don’t have time to vet every single booth, especially groups like these two who are being fairly subtle about their anti-gay messages to the public, but open about it to their own church members. It’s interesting that in A.C.T.’s blog post they mention having been at Indy Pride two years previously, though. At some point no one brought this anti-gay group to anyone’s attention?

Update: apparently, this was brought to the attention of Pride organizers last year, according to a post by Marie Siroky on ICON’s web site. But organizers took their money and accepted their application again this year, knowing who they were. I have a real concern, given that ACT has claimed that they have four converts to their preaching last year.

From what is being discussed on the Indiana Equality page, Pride organizers have told members of the LGBT community that they are planning to have vendors sign a Core Beliefs document next year when they apply for booth space, along with a method for lodging complaints, but the two churches will still have booths in place for this year’s pride festival.

Where these two churches are on the festival map, in case you want to check out their booths. What I’m going to do – recruit a camera person (my wife) and visit the booth, introduce myself, and ask them some questions about what their outreach to LBGT people is about. I want to specifically ask “Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?” and get a filmed response. I’m good at parsing what people are saying vs. what they really mean, and teasing out ambiguity, so I think I can get them to say the truth on camera. Which I will promptly post on my blog, of course.

Other people are suggesting “Angel Protests” where folks dress in angel costumes and shield the booths from view. That’s an interesting idea, but not one I really know how to organize.

Circle City Pride festival map

A.C.T. for the Gospel is at booth #52, along the side of Meridian Street, just south of the beverage tent. Castle View is at booth #116 on the same site of the event site, but far south, just near the festival security operations booth.

Pride Map 2013

Continue ReadingAnti-gay churches have booths at Indianapolis Gay Pride event

IYG and the homophobic Indiana State Legislature

Indiana Youth Group is a social advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth that has been around since 1987. They provide lots of important services to help young LGBT people in Indiana, including counseling and social services for at risk youth, advocacy on their behalf in schools, and health education. IYG has been a big part of the lives of several generations of LGBT folks. I was a part of IYG when I was young, as was Zach Adamson, our esteemed city-county council member, business owner and the first openly gay men to be elected to public office in Indiana.

IYG’s executive director is Mary Byrne, a pillar of the LBGT community for decades. She was the producer of the National Women’s Music Festival for years, and also owned Outword Bound, the LBGT bookstore where Stephanie and I met. Mary was also my landlady for five years, which is why I have personal reason to know IYG is in strong, safe, competent hands. The organization has done good work in Indiana for decades, and like other youth advocacy non-profit organizations, they seek out important sources of fundraising from the community.

A few years ago, IYG applied for the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles Specialty Plates program. This program is a win-win for the state of Indiana and for non-profit organizations. They produce specialty plates at a low cost, and members of the non-profit and their communities can promote the plates and receive part of the revenue, with the rest of the profit benefiting Indiana. Specialty plates have become an important part of fundraising for non-profit organizations, and an important revenue source for Indiana as well.

IYG Plates

IYG had to fight to get accepted into the program – they were initially denied entrance into the program by arbitrary changes in the requirements and a lack of transparency about what the requirements were, and IYG had to go to court to get accepted. It became clear during the legal fight that the BMV’s lack of transparency and arbitrary rule changes were based on homophobia. IYG’s acceptance into the program ended up making national headlines.

Unfortunately, IYG’s new specialty plate didn’t sit well with homophobic people in Indiana, and especially not with homophobic members of the the Indiana State Legislature, who immediately began seeking ways to prevent plates from being issued beyond the first year, and began drafting legislation to alter the way that specialty plates were issued, hoping exclude IYG in future years. Homophobes eventually struck gold, canceling IYG’s ability to issue plates based on another lack of transparency in the rules – organizations were not allowed to issue number plates to organization members who had given them support; something that is a regular practice among non-profits. In addition to canceling IYG’s plates, two other organizations, The Indiana Greenways Foundation and the Indiana 4-H Foundation also had their plates canceled for the same reason. Both organizations believe they were just caught in the homophobic crossfire. Karen Bohn, head of the Greenways Foundation, said she believed the real target was the gay youth group. “I think we were just collateral damage,” she said. “Unfortunately it doesn’t seem very fair.”

All three organizations were in negotiations with the BMV to have their plates reinstated when this past week, those negotiations were abruptly canceled by the BMV, who cited the state legislature’s new licensing commission, run by the state legislature, who will be the final approval for specialty plates. Under the new commission rules, Greenways and 4-H will probably get their specialty plates back, but even state legislatures admit that IYG will be denied due to homophobia:

“It depends on the committee makeup,” [Valparaiso Republican Rep. Ed] Soliday said. “I’d be disingenuous if I didn’t say there are some legislators who are very, very anti-IYG. I tried to separate the legislation from IYG for two years, and there were other folks who constantly wanted to drag it back in.”

Continue ReadingIYG and the homophobic Indiana State Legislature

Indiana Girl sues school over prom tux denial

Hey, look there at the staff of the schools administration – Check out the women wearing suits to work! Get those off, ladies, you have to wear dresses now!

From the Indy Star:

A 17-year-old Boone County girl has sued Lebanon Schools after her high school principal told her she could not wear a tuxedo to the school’s April 25 prom but would have to wear a dress.

The Lebanon High School senior, whose name is not revealed in the lawsuit, is a lesbian and does not wear dresses because she sees them as expressing a sexual identity that she does not embrace, court filings said.

Her attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has asked a federal court to issue an injunction that would require the school to let her wear the same formal attire to the prom as male students at the school.

In the filing, ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk argued that the district’s policy violates the stipulations in the U.S. Constitution that the government treat a female student the same as male students and not limit students’ freedom to express beliefs.

Continue ReadingIndiana Girl sues school over prom tux denial