Pelath seeks best strategy for defeating marriage amendment

27


timthumb.php-4

By Ryanne Wise and Erika Brock
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – The minority leader in the Indiana House is drafting an amendment to strip the controversial second sentence out of a constitutional proposal to ban same sex marriage.

But Rep. Scott Pelath said he’s not certain he’ll call the language for a vote. Instead, the Michigan City Democrat said he’s analyzing the best way to defeat the proposal.

The constitutional amendment – House Joint Resolution 3 – would, first, define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The second sentence would prohibit any legal relationship that is “identical or substantially similar” to marriage.

“My first approach is to extinguish the obvious stink bomb of the second sentence and if they are going to insist to move this forward, let’s at least get that monstrous language out of there,” Pelath said. “The second approach is letting HJR 3 die under its own lumbering brontosaurus-like weight.”

Pelath said he’ll talk to members of the Democratic caucus – who hold just 31 of the chamber’s 100 seats – before deciding how to proceed.

An amendment to HJR 3 means the constitutional amendment process would likely restart. That could postpone a possible ratification by voters from this fall to 2016.

Republicans will likely be waiting for Pelath’s decision as well. Rep. Casey Cox, R-Fort Wayne, voted for HJR 3 when it came before the House Elections Committee this week. But later, he said that he may vote against the proposal when it reaches the House floor next week.

Cox said he wants to “reconsider” the second sentence. He cited concerns raised by a lawyer with Indiana University, who said the provision threatens the school’s ability to offer benefits to same-sex partners.

“I thought IU’s council made some points that certainly need further discussion,” Cox said. “The caucus really wanted this to come to the floor. I can understand that. If it remains intact, I certainly reserve the right to vote no.”

The House will also consider House Bill 1153, which is meant to explain the legislative intent of the constitutional amendment. Supporters say the bill clarifies that the second sentence would not apply to same-sex benefits already being offered.

But Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Mount Vernon, said the companion bill doesn’t ease her concerns.

“If an amendment were to be brought up to remove the second sentence I will fully support this resolution. If the second sentence remains, I will not support the resolution,” McNamara said in a prepared statement provided to the Evansville Courier & Press.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said he’s pleased HJR 3 will get a full debate and vote on the House floor. He expects the bill to pass and move over to the Senate, as soon as next week.

“If it comes here, it will go to the (Senate) Judiciary committee, where it has been repeatedly,” Long said.

Those committee members are likely to pass the HJR 3 without amendment, which would send it to the full Senate for consideration. Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, is the committee chairman.

“I think Sen. Steele recognizes that this is an important subject and we would hope to have the opportunity for full debate on the Senate floor just as I think it’s healthy to have that debate on the House floor,” Long said.

If the bill passes both chambers, it moves to the ballot for possible ratification by voters in November.

Long declined to comment on HJR 3’s second sentence.

“I’ll reserve those comments for later, but obviously I said that I support an explanatory, clarifying piece of legislation, which House Bill 1153 was in my opinion,” Long said. “I think it was important, given the discussion, that has arisen from the second clause, that it be clear what the legislature is trying not to do.”

Erika Brock and Ryanne Wise are reporters for TheStatehousefile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students. 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

27 COMMENTS

    • He would call you a coward, say you should post under your real name, and dodge the issue.

    • Who cares….waynes opinion can “albatross” a “buzzard.”
      They took the HJR3 up there like a “mining Canary”. (“In a wee little cage,the poor thing trapped,tweeted,chirped,went wheezing and bobbin,like a afflicted “Robin”that drank of the waters,in the district of eighth ,fell right too it’s tail feathers,with the “parrots” a’squawking!

      The “chickens”,”pigeons”,and “roosters” and such,ran to the shaft ,ever so quickly,what a slurry of hurry,would they like to be buried.

      Most of the “crowing” was all about “ducking”,but really the “goose’n,” was the hidden precaution.

      Some of the “geese” wouldn’t fly by the vee,follow would not those “ducks” in a row.
      The turkeys,n’chickens ducking the droppings,are still O’cluckin,like a living turduckin,whilst all the wondering,if old “Owl” the raptor,in all of his wisdom,might be O’lining the loft of his barn,with the flurry of feathers,like a roost from the roosters, and the chickens at bay.
      And with a single hoot’in,and a pen feathered stroke,those barnyard fowl that left in haste,with the waste,to exit the place,in the shade of the sagamore,and its Judicial Branches,in its shades of dire,and the darkness that soon cometh, left the barnyard a’foul,for the fowl in the egg.”)

      [Waters fouling] by the(“barnyard poet?”) 😉

  2. I’m for medical and industrial hemp. In fact, I really don’t care about recreational use.

    My concern is that those supporting industrial and medical use really want it for recreational use. That’;s fine, just be honest about your agenda.

    I am also concerned that we will give legal store fronts to criminals. Yes, if you are selling MJ you have shown a disregard for the law that everyone else must live by in favor of profit.

    • Laws have not even put a dent in the recreational use of Oxycontin, Percocet, or Lortabs. Laws and enforcement has not put a dent in Vanderburgh Counties distinction as the meth capital of the state. Laws have done nothing to stop MJ from being farmed and distributed. The safest places in America for MJ are the legal places whether it is recreational or medicinal. Can’t Indiana even copy working programs from other states that generate tax revenue and keep casual users of MJ out of needed prison cells? The war on MJ is completely lost and should have never been fought in the first place.

      • Indiana appears more interested in copying less successful laws, like a ban on gay marriage and drug-testing for recipients of public assistance. Florida’s drug-testing law was just struck down and the one that was voted out of committee last week is patterned after it. We only need to look to Utah and Oklahoma for the “latest” on marriage equality bans. It figures that we will be among the very last to legalize pot.

  5. “The second approach is letting HJR 3 die under its own lumbering brontosaurus-like weight.”

    I hope this is the choice Rep. Pelath chooses. I would rather see the amendment either stand or fall. I’m not for giving people like Rep. McNamara and “easy” way out, although I can appreciate the temptation to do so.

    • I agree elkaybee! I hope and feel that it should die! Of course Rep McNamara wants to take the easy way out! She would like to keep that seat! I feel it would be on the wrong side of history for this to pass!

      • I live in Holli Sullivan’s district. I’m getting a couple of pairs of good walking shoes to put to use knocking on doors for her opponent, likely Mr. Melcher. I’ve not been very active on the local scene politically for a long time, and I don’t know a lot of the candidates personally, but I’m about to change that. We need to run all of the cowards out. We pretty much need a “clean sweep” in the Statehouse in November.

      • It’s kind of ironic that years ago, I knocked on those same doors years ago for Greg Server.

  6. Pelath better call Wayne Parke so he can tell him what to with issue. He tells
    Holli Sullivan and Wendy McNamara what to do all the time.

  7. The way the constitution reads to me is that the amendment would need to be entered into the journal and voted on by the next elected body, so I don’t think they can constitutionally vote on this amendment.

  8. What’s interesting is that it would appear the purpose of the next elected body voting on an amendment is to give the people a chance to change the body if they are not satisfied. Being as republicans have a 2/3 majority, I would say Hoosiers want to vote on this amendment.

    • There are two kinds of people who want to vote on this (and a few others who want to make the GOP look like idiots)…bigots and those who want to see the Amendment lose to prove Indiana is not a bigot state.

      Want to talk about the legal case?

      The proposed amendment is unconstitutional based on the equal protection clause.

      Put your Red Dawn VHS tape in again. Paranoia and fear rule in some bunkers I guess.

      • More low wattage hate. The problem is that you only see others through your narcissistic prejudice rather than what one actually says.

        The old south bigots used vicious, demeaning, and untruthful attacks against those they opposed. They attacked the character of those they hated in an effort to intimidate them. you’re just like them, but I am not intimidated by your hateful attacks. Your just a Fred Phelps for the left.

        I will continue to make my points with reason, intelligence, and due respect, while your ilk will continue to call me a bigot. Big deal.

        The courts will decide if this amendment violates the 14th amendment. The equal protection clause is not a club you can use to beat others into obeying your will.

        Twenty seven states with similar amendments are unchallenged, Utah’s is under review, and Oklahoma’s was rightfully struck down but the only legal marriage in the state is one man and one woman.

        The executive branch has decide to recognize 1,000 marriages in Utah as legitimate even though no legislature or court has ruled them legitimate. How do you not see a problem with that? We may as well shut down all courts and state legislatures and let the executive branch decree our laws.

        As for now, it is the constitutional right and due process to allow a vote. Why afraid of allowing it to go to a referendum?

        • They are afraid, because they know the vote will prove them and their minority opinion to be unwanted. The left believes that if they cry victim loud enough and often enough then that proves they are righteous in their beliefs. When in reality they are not the majority in this matter. They are afraid of the process because it doesn’t allow them to be victims. So they start with the name calling and trying to make people think they will be ostracized for voting what they believe )if they vote against the leftist).

Comments are closed.