By John Sittler
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – After three and a half hours of heated testimony and debate, a House committee postponed a vote Monday on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and woman.
Reen Gutgsell is a lesbian Christian that is for the ban on gay marriage. She testified about being a lesbian but also about her beliefs as a Chirstian.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, said he doesn’t know if a majority of committee members plans to approve House Joint Resolution 3 and has not decided when the committee will reconvene.
Much of Monday’s testimony addressed the potential economic impact of the amendment, which has already passed the General Assembly once but must be approved again this year to go on the November ballot for ratification.
Executives from Indiana University, Cummins, and Eli Lilly & Co. testified against both HJR 3 and its accompanying legislation – House Bill 1153 – which is meant to clarify what lawmakers intend with the amendment.
Steve Fry, vice president of human resources and diversity at Lilly, said his company would be severely affected by the passage of HJR 3 because it will hurt the company’s ability to recruit and keep a high quality workforce. He said passage of HJR-3 would “harm the reputation of our great state.â€
Signs that supported and opposed the HJR3 bill lined the hallway outside the House Chamber as a three hour judiciary committe meeting went on.
“This legislation is bad for Indiana, and certainly bad for business in Indiana,†Fry said.
Fry also said recruitment and hiring at Lily would be inhibited even by the public discussion, regardless of how a vote in November turned out.
“It actually matters little how voters will vote on this referendum. The damage to Indiana and our competitiveness will be done,†he said.
Jim Bopp, a Terre Haute attorney and former member of the Republican National Committee, said the idea that the debate on marriage will do damage is “troubling.â€
“What does that tell you? That there are some people that are so intolerant of other people’s views that a simple debate about the question offends them to the extent that they want to leave the state,†he said.
Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, listens to more questions for conservative attorney Jim Bopp, after an intense discussion lead by questions that Delaney gave Bopp.
“And even more troubling than that is that this is a direct attack upon democracy. You cannot debate and discuss something that some people will be offended by, because they will offended by it?â€
Throughout his testimony, Bopp was interrupted several times by laughter from Freedom Indiana supporters seated in the public balcony.
That resulted in a reprimand by Steuerwald, who had already asked for public quiet and respect earlier in the meeting.
Marya Rose, a vice president at Columbus-based Cummins, said passage of the amendment would cause “irreparable harm†to Indiana’s business climate and reputation.
Cummins “will be reluctant to continue to add jobs in Indiana if our state is a less welcoming and inclusive place for all our employees,†she said.
But Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, an author of the amendment, cited statistics he said showed business officials were wrong in their analyses.
“Eight of the top nine states with the highest rate of job growth in the private sector have an amendment to define marriage,†Turner said.
According to Turner, the four states with the highest gross domestic product per capita – as well as four of the top five fasting-growing per capita income states – all have an amendment to protect their states’ definitions of marriage as one man and one woman.
Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, echoed Turner’s sentiments and called the claims of economic harm a make-believe “boogeyman.†He said North Carolina – the most recent state to pass a marriage amendment in 2012 – has experienced economic gains in the calendar year since the 2012 passage of its amendment.
Clark cited the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce saying, “business investment increased more than 4 percent, unemployment dropped, and the state added more than 42,000 new jobs after voting to protect marriage.â€
Some of Monday’s testimony focused on the second part of the amendment. The first part defines marriage. The second prohibits the legislature from creating any legal status for same-sex couples that is identical or substantially similar to marriage.
Jackie Simmons, vice president and general counsel for IU, said passage of the amendment would directly affect the school’s ability to recruit and maintain its staff of more than 40,000 Hoosiers. She said her key concern is the second sentence.
Kentucky has a constitutional provision that is identical in language to HJR 3. In 2004, the Kentucky attorney general issued an opinion that schools would not be allowed to issue partner benefits because that created a violation of the amendment.
Simmons cited this case as cause for concern at IU, which offers domestic partnership benefits.
However, Bopp said that the University of Kentucky began issuing partner benefits in 2007 and the practice has not been challenged.
Turner said the amendment would not affect the ability for Indiana University, Lilly, Cummins, or anyone else to offer benefits to their employees.
There was also significant debate about the necessity of HB 1153, the companion bill.
Peter Rusthoven, an attorney representing Freedom Indiana, which opposes the amendment, said state law – and the constitution – should be “certain†and the proposed amendment, specifically the second sentence, “creates substantial uncertainty.â€
Rusthoven, who gave what he called “a perspective of conservative jurisprudence,†said the passage of HJR 3 would be “turning over future decisions of what will and will not be recognized over to the courts.â€
Turner and other supporters said they recognized the certainty of litigation – regardless of whether the amendment passed – but said the decision should ultimately be up to the resident of Indiana.
“The future of marriage belongs in the hands of Hoosiers, not judges, not activists,†Turner said.
He said this is an issue that every state has faced, with 35 states allowing their citizens to vote and decide the issue. The amendment passed in 29 of these states.
Turner said it is time to put the debate to rest and let Hoosiers vote because, “there’s only one true poll… and that’s on November 4, 2014.â€
John Sittler is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.
Why hasn’t this been tackled and passed yet? Why the sitting on hands by State GOP officials for so long when the loud and crazy voices of some have demanded they follow through?
Simple. The direction of Constitutionally protected same-sex marriage has already been decided by a SCOTUS ruling. Most enlightened States are smart enough to go ahead and stop wasting tax payer dollars and have already changed their laws. Cleaning up Indiana State law to eventually close the lid on this is….a matter of time and NOTHING else.
As such, Indiana Republicans are throwing away State dollars and legislative time by bantering about on this issue.
The thing is THIS: Indiana has no right to pass amendments denying interracial marriage. It has been ruled unconstitutional. Same for inter-faith marriages. VOTING on such matters has no validity.
Same is true for same-sex marriage…in short time, albeit much to the chagrin of the Tea Party Westboro Baptist style extremist Christians.
This ball is rolling down the hill. Same-sex marriage IS coming to Indiana as a US Constitutionally protected right whether or not an IN amendment passes.
Bing-O!! It never ceases to amaze me that Hoosiers try so hard to go back in time.
To pursue happiness is given by a creator who knows the way. We must follow the lead and stop the rolling down and instead allow the start the journey back to the truth for the sake of our posterity.
This should say, “start the ball back up the hill; allow the journey back to the truth for the sake of our posterity.”
The right to pursue happiness is given by the Constitution, and you are free to believe what you want about a creator. That is a right granted to you by the Constitution, too. The creator you refer to seems to like suffering and martyrdom quite a lot.
Oklahoma’s ban was just ruled unconstitutional. Time to quit wasting time and do something worthwhile. You hear me republicans? If you want a theocracy please move to Iran.
It is looking more and more like this whole kerfuffle will be moot before it ever reaches the ballot, if our legislators are lame enough to put it on. This is headed full-speed ahead to SCOTUS and a ruling that everyone has a right to marry whomever they want, provided all parties involved are competent to enter into a legal contract. Let’s just move on!
Well said. The Indiana legislature, as Ghost Tom Joad says so succinctly, is wasting time.
EKB,agree.Yeah,and real issues go untouched with little focus or affective bang for your taxable buck.
His,Hers and Theirs non-productive,useable time pissing contest,however in your area actually flushing the stuff sometimes can be an destinanal issue,as well.
Yes please move on!!All the jabbering and all the hand wringing is energy wasted, money wasted, time wasted, and state image lost (what little we had) down the crapper. Somebody in Indianapolis has got to be smart enough to realize that one would think.
Of course it was. You can’t single out one group to deny what you give to another. It’s the same reason Utah’s ban on polygamy was struct down. But then you can single out one group to give it to and deny to others who have the same qualifications.
“If you want a theocracy please move to Iran.” Ah, the old low watt love it or leave it argument. A Theocracy is against the constitution, but religion is protected. You can’t just banish people because you don’t like their religion. But there hope you will be able to if we keep writing laws on how we feel.
Neither of these two points make any sense.
Thank you, Weinz. It sounds like IE is cracking.
” But there hope you will be able to if we keep writing laws on how we feel.”
Gibberish!!
He’s primarily just mad. Mad he’s joined the losing side of a Constitutional case, judged by the Courts as wrong, and considered by an ever increasing size of America as “one of the historical bigots willing to deny a class of citizens their Constitutional rights.” All that’s left is for him to claim he knows what God thinks on the issue.
LKB, you’re ualified to grade my papers but that’s about all.
“But there is hope…” sorry for my typos.
Typos aside, neither point makes any sense.
I can’t seem to avoid typos *qualified.
The reason low watt haters do not understand what I said is because they only see through their biases and have not read Oklahoma’s amendment. Therefore, they do not understand why the amendment was rightfully struck down.
The problem is in part B of the amendment.
(a.) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
(b.) A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.
(c.) Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor”
I fully agree with the ruling, but that’s what happens when one thinks about issues.
You can not single out any group for penalties. If they had said “unions other than one man and one woman will not be recognized,” then the amendment would stand like it does in 28 other states.
This idea that “singling out one group for penalties” is what is salient is absurd and nonsensical.
The State bans on same-sex marriage are all being struck down based on the Constitution’s equal protection under the law. Civil rights are not policy matters to be decided by “gathering enough bigots in a room to win the vote.” Majority votes that are violations of the US Constitution are a waste of time and of course illegal.
The precedent is clear and damning. State majority votes against interracial marriage and inter-faith marriages were properly overturned due to the Supreme Court ruling they are unconstitutional.
As with bans on interracial marriage and inter-faith marriage, there’s no winning, constitutional defense for prohibiting same-sex marriage here.
This is over, and nothing will stop the eventual correction of this injustice.
That is not bias nor misunderstanding. What a farcical and weak comment. It’s the law, albeit not formally until the legislative mopping up among so many of the intolerant is complete.
“The State bans on same-sex marriage are all being struck down based on the Constitution’s equal protection under the law.”
That is ideologically-driven horse manure from Weinzwestside. Sexual preference is NOT a suspect classification, and the states easily pass the rational basis test when they limit marriage to heterosexual unions — the only class that can naturally procreate and raise biological children with gender complementarity.
We need look no further than U.S. v. Windsor to see the Court reaffirming its deference to the right of the States to define marriage as they see fit.
The conflation of sexual preference with race is insulting to African Americans, and it is entirely fallacious. A rainbow revolutionary wouldn’t recognize legitimate “precedent” if it were to bite her on the nose.
The rhetoric from “Freedom Indiana” and their ilk can best be summarized as deception, half-truths, and bald-faced lies.
You know, “Cross-A-Palooza 2.0” is in the pipeline now, too. There is going to be a lot of uproar, between those issues. Maher is going to have a field day. Hopefully the cross appeal will be ruled on by his appearance.
This is not in correct order, but I was wondering. Are you counting Utah and Oklahoma among those 28 states?
I did not included Oklahoma. Utah is still under review so I did include it. call it 27 if you like, but only four states do no have same sex marriage or a constitutional definition of marriage.
http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-state-by-state/?utm_source=Albert+Mohler&utm_campaign=fa6cdbce7d-The_Briefing_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b041ba0d12-fa6cdbce7d-307777085
Oklahoma’s law was struck down yesterday. Are you beginning to see a pattern?
Wonder how Wendy Mac and Holli Sullivan going to vote on this issue?
They’ll do what they’re told like good little trophy wives.
The GOP does have several of those. Don’t forget the other “trophy wife”, Lloyd Winnecke!
That is funny. I’d put that bronze cup winner up against the new appointed legislator any day. He is, after all, the mayor. Isn’t he? Huh? Well, he won anyway. Don’t forget he’s been speciously alleged to be a 60%er.
~~~~
‘Jim Bopp, a Terre Haute attorney and former member of the Republican National Committee, said the idea that the debate on marriage will do damage is “troubling.â€
“What does that tell you? That there are some people that are so intolerant of other people’s views that a simple debate about the question offends them to the extent that they want to leave the state,†he said.’ ~~ CCO Article
~~~~
The aptly named Bopp should understand that we have an obligation to humanity to point out discrimination when we see it. Indiana has more than its share itolerant bigots, as Bopp’s siting here attests to. Bopp is on the wrong side of history, humanity and the court decisions that cascade down the pike almost daily now. There is a deserved gnashing of teeth in the statehouse. The Republicans have their majority and are afraid to use it. They should be. Ho ho ho.
~~~~
Matters like these cannot be left to the ignorant, knuckledragging electorate. They know not what they do.
Cummins before Bopp.
“Matters like these cannot be left to the ignorant, knuckledragging electorate. They know not what they do.”
If they did, Pence would not be governor.
Comments are closed.