Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment

Essential Follow-up Reading on HJR-3

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

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

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

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

Continue ReadingEssential Follow-up Reading on HJR-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) This SECTION expires July 1, 2017.

SECTION 3. An emergency is declared for this act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate Hearing Rules Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was the vote count:

yea nay vote sheet hjr3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Bosma and the Marriage Amendment

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

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

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

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.

This is the Governor’s bill proposed property tax reform bill, a high-profile piece of legislation that ensures the people will sit up and take notice if it gets threatened, or if Democrats go against it. Of course the amendment has nothing to do with Property Taxes, but it’s attached because that’s expected to pass.

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

Anti-Marriage Equality Amendment Introduced to Indiana Legislature

As Bilerico is reporting – the massively flawed legislation to put an anti-marriage equality amendment (banning civil marriage for same-sex partners) on the ballot for voting had been re-introduced to the legislature.

Here’s the proposed bill:

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.

That second line — that’s the massively flawed part. The idea is not only to prevent us from getting married, but also to prevent civil unions. But the wording of this bill is so bad that it has ramifications FAR BEYOND same-sex couples, and far beyond civil unions. This is what happened in Ohio – domestic violence laws are being invalidated for heterosexual couples who are unmarried – and women are being victimized as a result, because they’re abused by their live-in boyfriends, but the police can’t prosecute because they aren’t “married.”

Read that second paragraph again, and think about it for a minute.

Now think about that in context of Stephanie and I, trying to build a life together – to protect our joint property and provide for one another as we get older. That can invalidate wills, powers of attorney, living wills, assets and trusts.

We have to spend thousands of dollars that heterosexual people don’t to protect our lives – you get it just by getting a $10 marriage license. And that second line of this bill – can throw all of it out the window.

This bill is CRAZY – and it’s going to be voted on in the legislature a second time. It’s called SJR-7 – Senate Resolution 7. You can track what’s happening to it at that link.

The Homophobic Hate-Filled Bigots Responsible

Republican Senator Brandt Hershman (Wheatfield) – the Majority Whip

These people know what that second line means – they know how harmful it can be. They’re aware that we could lose our assets and be out in the cold, and they know about the problems in Ohio – but they’re so filled with hatred they don’t care.

Please contact every single one of these utter jackholes (information at the links) and tell them that they’re not good Christians for supporting this kind of discrimination, (make sure to say SJR-7) and call them on being the evil, hate-filled bigots that they are.

Stephanie and Steph

Do it for us — aren’t we cute? Shouldn’t we get to have a life together? Don’t you love us? Let these guys know that what they’re doing hurts people you care about.

Why this should be decided by courts, not by ballot

Civil rights should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority. That’s the key that sets America apart from other democracies – We have a Bill of Rights that protects the rights of the individual from the whims of the masses.

If we let people vote on civil rights, Rosa Parks would still be sitting at the back of the bus right now. Fortunately, the wiser head of a court system were allowed to interpret the law and decide discrimination was wrong.

But if we let Indiana citizens AMEND THE CONSTITUTION just to arbitrarily discriminate against a group of people, we’ll be betraying every principle the country stands for.

Continue ReadingAnti-Marriage Equality Amendment Introduced to Indiana Legislature

Rep. Espich on supporting bigotry: “I sure do!”

Representative Jeff Espich (R 82) was asked, “You don’t support bigotry do you, Sir?” His reply? “I sure do!”

There were around 150 people protesting against House Speaker Brian Bosma’s Beer Bash for Cash last night at the Rathskeller in the Antheaneum, and my partner Stephanie and I were two of them. The problem with Bosma’s fundraiser is, of course, that Massachusetts Avenue was revitalized primarily by gay and lesbian business owners who moved into the area and restored buildings and built prosperous businesses when most of the real estate there was boarded up and the Republican mayor at the time, Stephen Goldsmith, was ignoring the area.

Now Massachusetts Avenue is a flourishing cultural district, and Bosma was attempting to cash in on the success of GLBT people’s hard work by holding a fundraiser designed to raise money to crush the very people who made the area a success. Fortunately, he failed, because our protest was a smashing success.

Bosma’s party expected 500 supporters, but they had no more than 50 people in attendance, and apparently at one point Bosma was pounding the table in frustration over the noise and commotion we created.

We held up signs outside the event; we took photos of people entering and leaving the fundraiser, chanted and talked to people on their way in, gave them leaflets and information on why we were there, and when their fundraiser moved outside to the beer garden, we walked around to the side of the building with a bullhorn and chanted and talked to drown out their speeches. We also aired some of the dirty laundry some attendees brought with them; several politicians who claim to support “the sanctity of marriage” have some less than stellar records when it comes to marital fidelity, and a list of those incidents read into the bull horn stopped some Bosma supporters in shock.

The protest was organized by the Indiana Action Network (a direct action group) and attended by people from StopTheAmendment.org, Greater Indianapolis Fairness Alliance, Indiana Equality, Jesus Metropolitan Community Church, and Rock Indiana as well as many individuals.
The event was not without incident; one male Bosma supporter viciously attacked Outword Bound Bookstore owner Tamara Tracy, attempting to steal and break the camera she was holding after she took his picture. He was stopped and quickly hustled inside where he couldn’t harm anyone else.

“Bosma Faces Protesters over Gay Marriage Ban” — That’s the headline on the Star article about the event. In the Star, Bosma has a very strange quote:

“I’m not overly concerned about any protest,” Bosma said. “We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.”

I’m not sure what he thinks that means, really. We’re not going to “agree to disagree” when heterosexual people enjoy special rights that are denied to others. We’re not going to “agree to disagree” on the issue of being denied health care benefits and the ability to see our family members in the hospital. We’re not going to “agree to disagree” on being fired from our jobs because some people are bigots. We’re not going to “agree to disagree” when gay and lesbian youth are harrassed in school. We’re not going to “agree to disagree” when we’re told we can’t worship as we please.

There’s no agreement with any of those injustices here.

Continue ReadingRep. Espich on supporting bigotry: “I sure do!”