One thing can be said about SJR7, the proposed "Marriage Amendment" to the Indiana Consitution. It's BORING. The second paragraph, that is. The first, which defines marriage as the union of only one man and one woman, just sails by, and whether you're "fer it" or "agin it", you pretty much know what it means.
But that second section is a snoozer. 31 words of lawyer talk: "This Constitution or any other law shall not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And that's the problem in a nutshell: how to get folks (right now our state legislators) to dissect and understand the second paragraph, and see its dangers. All in a 30 second sound bite and within short attention spans. Over the next couple of weeks I'm going to give it another try. I'll attempt to grab your attention in a couple of paragraphs and then, so as not to monopolize Bil's graciously offered space, I'll continue "below the line" for more in-depth reading. So please make the jump with me....now:
Thanks for continuing. Actually, you get off light this morning, because I'm headed downtown to the Statehouse to attend the 9:00 a.m. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on SJR7. Please join me and the many other opponents of SJR7. I understand it will be held in the Senate chambers (third floor) to accomodate the expected attendance.
And class will reconvene on the second paragraph with the next post Friday.....bring some caffinated coffee. Just teasing.....I'll try to make it light but informative.
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
1 Comment
This amendment could affect EVERY Hoosier and I need more answers from the Senate. First, I want confirmation that the Indiana legislature is giving due diligence to studying the economic impact of the amendment. What will be the affect on Indiana's economy if more gays/lesbians relocate to other states? Will this amendment negate existing domestic partnership benefits and protections in both the private and public sector? If it does, what will be the economic fallout to the 254 Fortune 500 companies who offer these benefits? Will the State be funding contingencies should a segment of the population lose health insurance as a result of this amendment? How much will this cost Hoosier taxpayers? Will national/international businesses downsize even further because of our diminished labor pool? Will business expansion opportunities go to other states with less restrictive laws? Will our economy eventually mirror other states with similarly restrictive amendments - Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, North Dakota, and Oklahoma? I await your plan.
Rod | January 31, 2007 3:13 PM
Reply to this comment