By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – The Republican leaders of the Indiana General Assembly said Monday they won’t control the fate of the proposed marriage amendment but will leave the decision about how to proceed on the controversial measure up to their GOP members.
House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said during a panel discussion Monday that he won’t dictate how the House handles a proposed constitutional marriage amendment. Bosma said the GOP caucus – which holds a majority of seats in the chamber – will decide. Photo by Jesse Wilson, TheStatehouseFile.com
Still, House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President Pro Tem David Long said they’re seeking a civil discussion – one without name calling and judgments.
“I don’t think one person – one judge, one university president or one person in a boardroom†should decide how the proposal is handled, said Bosma, R-Indianapolis, during a panel discussion at an Indiana Chamber of Commerce event.
“It needs to be made by elected representatives,†Bosma said. “This is a tough one, but we’ll decide together. We’ll decide it collaboratively.â€
Long said no one has taken “the vote†among his members to determine how the group wants to proceed on the amendment, which would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The proposal would also ban same-sex civil unions.
“I am not going to try to dictate what’s going to happen on this issue,†he told a couple hundred business officials.
The legislative leaders’ comments were the first on the marriage issue in months. Earlier this year, Bosma and Long postponed votes on the proposed amendment because the U.S. Supreme
Legislative leaders – from left, Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne; Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson; House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis; and House Minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City – took part in a panel discussion Monday at an Indiana Chamber of Commerce event. Photo by Jesse Wilson, TheStatehouseFile.com
Court was considering another state’s marriage laws. The leaders said then that they planned votes in 2014 and expected the measure to pass.
But public opinion on the issue has been shifting – and so have the views of some lawmakers. A growing coalition of businesses and organizations including Eli Lilly & Co. and the Indy Chamber are also pressuring lawmakers not to vote on the proposal.
On Monday, Freedom Indiana joined with Interfaith Coalition on Non-Discrimination to deliver a letter to lawmakers opposing the proposed amendment. The letter was signed by more than 300 faith leaders across the state.
“We are Indiana clergy, leaders of faith communities, and other religious professionals,†the letter reads. “Our backgrounds and those of the people we serve vary widely. Our views on marriage differ. But we speak with one voice to oppose amending the Indiana Constitution to define marriage.â€
Matthew Myer Boulton, president of the Christian Theological Seminary, joined a group of religious leaders Monday at the Statehouse where the Interfaith Coalition on Non-Discrimination delivered a letter to legislators opposing a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Photo by Jesse Wilson, TheStatehouseFile.com
The General Assembly has already approved the amendment once. But it must two consecutive, separately-elected legislatures to be put on the ballot for possible ratification for voters. If the proposal is not approved in 2014 or if it’s amended the amendment process would start over.
At Monday’s panel, GOP legislative leaders stressed that despite the timing, the proposed amendment won’t be the most important thing on the session’s agenda. Bosma said workforce and education issues will top his caucus’ list of goals.
Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, agreed but had a different take.
“It is not the most important issue we will be facing,†Lanane said. “But it is the most divisive.â€
Lesley Weidenbener is executive editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.
Â
The state should get the hell out of marriage. It is a religious rite. The state should only recognize legal unions for legal purposes and those should include whatever unions people choose to make betwixt themselves. I’ll be ashamed if my Party decides we should amend the State Constitution with a more intrusive government position on marriage.
Social conservatives, you’re wrong on this one, and you’re going to only succeed in ensuing some people feel unwelcome to live, work, and innovate in the State of Indiana. This is the equivalent of the Jim Crow era shop owner in the South stubbornly telling a black youth “your money is no good here”.
Brad,
You are correct. The concept in the amendment is sad and wrong. It needs to just be forgotten, thrown out. What other things have been delayed or lost entirely while time was taken dealing with this issue.
You already know how I feel about this one. We, Christians, have been too passive and have let the government take control of too many parts of our religion. Governmental involvement in licensing and regulating marriage is wrong. This is a church issue.
I would encourage ALL Indiana voters to urge their representatives and senators in the Indiana General Assembly to vote AYE on the proposed Constitutional marriage amendment.
Doing so would enable “we the people” to have the final decision. This should satisfy all our citizens who want a popular vote on everything.
You are championing “democracy”, the construct under which 51% can impose penalties and iniquities upon the other 49%. This is the direct antithesis to a republican viewpoint, which champions equal protection under the law.
I’m having a hard time discerning why conservatives would ever ask for MORE government involvement in religious matters. It’s exceedingly foolish.
I was hoping you were going to talk constitutionality, but you didn’t go there. Instead, you spoke of a “republican” viewpoint which somehow flies in the face of our form of government. Our state government is NOT a republican form, rather, it is democratic. 50%+1 does win in the statehouse and Indiana elections.
Conservatives seem to be asking Republicans and Democrats to adhere to the federal and state constitutions, rather than the Chamber of Commerce’s bucket list and campaign contributions.
If Indiana were an independent country, it would be most accurately described as a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. We have checks and balances and separation of powers.
With RINO’s controlling both chambers in Indiana’s statehouse, checks and balances are out the window.
If Indiana were an independent state, as the United States Constitution provides for it to be, businesses would be flocking here. As it is, our state elected officials quiver and bow before the alter in Washington, D.C.
But, as the two “major” parties are only concerned with beating one another and maintaining the status quo, the blame for all woes rest squarely on the shoulders of the lazy, selfish, and comfortly ignorant voters.
Thanks Tea Party for making the GOP look silly again. We are only a couple years from gay marriage being legalized on the federal level, whether by law or the Court. It is a waste of time for Indiana to even debate this.
The Tea Crazies use gay marriage tactics because they work in the small towns full of uneducated people that vote for them.
Why does anyone care if two men or two women want to marry. How does that even affect you?
This isn’t the “Tea Party”. This is just old fashioned social conservatism or as Bush called it “compassionate conservatism”. It is NOT “Tea Party”. Co-opted tea party, maybe.
Name one elected “Tea Party” member that is for gay marriage….
I guess I’m just an OG… I remember when the tea party started in ’07. Peeps wanted big government out of their lives. The first tea party rally was a Ron Paul rally.
GOP: committed to hate
Comments are closed.