Bil Browning

Interesting tidbits from the latest Star article on SJR-7

Filed By Bil Browning | March 29, 2007 11:18 AM | comments

Filed in: Living, Marriage Equality, Politics, The Movement
Tags: constitutional amendment, Cummins Engine, Dow AgroSciences, Eli Lilly, Indiana, marriage, Mitch Daniels, Pat Bauer, Scott Pelath, SJR-7, WellPoint

This morning's Star has an article on SJR-7 that has some points I wanted to pick up and comment on. The piece focuses on Lilly's opposition to the proposed amendment, but some of the sections stood out to me. (All emphasis is mine.)

First, the sidebar to the article says:

The House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee will hold its second hearing on the amendment sometime next week. The committee's chairman Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, is expected to announce the time and date of the hearing today. The deadline for the committee to send the amendment before the full House is April 5.

So this still doesn't seem to answer the question I asked yesterday about whether or not the amendment would come out of committee, but it does signal that another hearing will be forthcoming. I'm hearing from sources that the amendment will come out of committee and will go to a floor vote. I'll be anxious to see when the committee is scheduled.

I thought that the committee had until April 10th though - not April 5th. Anyone know which is correct? I don't see April 5 on that calendar at all...

Now on to the article itself:

"This sends the message that Indiana is an intolerant state," Carla Cox, a spokeswoman for Eli Lilly and Co., said of the amendment. "That's going to impact our business, our recruitment and retention of employees." ... "I can't believe a company with the stature of Lilly and their enormous legal resources would take a corporate position like this without any specific legal reasoning to back it up," said Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, the amendment's author.
I literally laughed out loud when I read this quote from Hershman. It takes a legal degree to understand that writing discrimination against a minority group into the constitution would paint a picture of Indiana as an intolerant, hill-jack, fly-over state? Uh, yeah, Brandt. Here's a hint to the "good" Senator... Write an amendment to ban inter-racial marriage. I'm going to guess that no legal resources would be needed to state emphatically that it would send "the message that Indiana is an intolerant state."
"Lilly's management knows that this does not impact their benefit package that they want to offer same-sex couples," said Eric Miller, founder of Advance America, a conservative group that supports the amendment.

"What they're trying to do is take a stand that is decidedly out of the mainstream for Hoosier values and probably for the majority of their employees."


It just keeps getting better, doesn't it? Indiana's leading homophobe trying to claim that he represents the mainstream as versus Indiana's four largest businesses? Does he really want to take on Cummins Engine, Wellpoint, Dow AgroSciences, and Eli Lilly? Boy, for a Republican he's sure turning anti-business, isn't he?
House Democrats are pressuring Gov. Mitch Daniels to follow Lilly, his former employer, and give his opinion on the amendment.

Since he took office, Daniels has steered clear of the debate, saying it's a legislative decision that voters sign off on.

But Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, sent a letter last week to the governor asking for his input, given the growing opposition from some of the state's largest employers. Pelath chairs the House rules committee, which is considering whether to remove the amendment's second sentence.

Daniels, who has made job creation a top priority in his administration, continued to decline comment.

"The governor has firmly indicated that this is a process unique to the legislature and does not have any comment beyond that," said Jane Jankowski, Daniels' press secretary.


Am I the only one thinking that the governor is being a chicken-shit on this issue? I remember that while Daniels was running for office, he made a small pit stop to talk to some LGBT Hoosiers at a private meeting. He stated emphatically then that he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, but, if I remember correctly, he wasn't too hip on an amendment since there was already a law on the books (DOMA). It's pretty common knowledge around the state that Daniels isn't one of those "God, guns and gays" Republicans (remember that during the gubernatorial primaries his opponent was Eric Miller who ran as the conservative alternative to Daniel's moderate viewpoint), so why is the Guv keeping mum on this issue? Is he worried that he'd hurt his chances of re-election whether with the Republican voter base or campaign contributors? While some leading LGBT republicans like to constantly tout the Guv as "with us" on this issue, if he won't (pardon the pun) come out and say so, what good does that do us? If Daniels is truly worried about portraying Indiana as a world-class destination for new companies, he's going to have to take a principled stand against discriminating against part of the Hoosier workforce.

And finally, a clip from Speaker Bauer caught my eye at the end of the article:

Bauer said that when Lilly and three of the state's other largest employers speak, legislators should listen.

"I think this is very significant," Bauer said. "These are international corporations we're very proud of having here. If they're concerned, I think everyone should pay attention."


I'm paying attention, Speaker Bauer, as are my readers and folks across the state. We want to see if Indiana truly is an inclusive and welcoming environment not just for businesses, but for our most important asset - our citizens. Now if we could only get the majority of our legislators - Republican and Democrat - to be concerned about the welfare of our fellow Hoosiers as versus pandering to the religious right.

Hope springs eternal, folks. What's your take on the article?


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


It's like crack cocaine for them! Are they completely insane! That was too funny. Pat Bauer is coming up smelling like a rose on this. Great piece.

Jen Jorczak | March 29, 2007 3:34 PM

The deadline for 3rd reading is April 10, so yeah, in order for a bill to make all the timelines for going from committee to adoption of the committee report to 2nd reading to 3rd reading, bills will have to be out of committee by April 5th--one week from today.

Jen Jorczak | March 29, 2007 3:41 PM

I think you're right, the governor's TOTALLY being a chicken about this--but then, so is most of the legislature.

Whatever happened to the idea that we're supposed to be electing our LEADERS? How long until we see a candidate with the balls (or ovaries) to take a stand for the oh-so-controversial, radical idea of equal rights FOR ALL?

Is it true that if/when SJR7 makes it out of committee in the House, when it is called before the full House, any member can offer an amendment that will then be voted on by the entire House? For instance, adding back in "part B" were it stripped out in committee. I'm pretty sure this is the case for a bill. Is it the same for a resolution? If so, we're in big trouble. Somebody in the know care to respond?

Mike/Columbus | March 30, 2007 6:55 AM

I smell chicken shit also.

I have the same recollection about that "little" meeting Daniels had with members of the LGBT community. I have the same recollection of his statements, and also his mouthpieces (and i'm not using that word negatively) within our community. Wouldn't a letter and phone campaign to his office possibly help? We should all be asking him the same thing Pelath asked, "asking for his input, given the growing opposition from some of the state's largest employers."