Good luck on killing that evil bill in Indiana. Trust me, you don't want Kentucky's DOMA amendment.

PB

Bil, I truly hope that you are right in your certitude. You're aware that I have been considerably less ready to put the nail in the coffin both here and elsewhere. I won't belabor the overall point of contention, but do want to point out one area where, after studying how the amendment Representative Eric Turner has offered (and which will be dealt with today...Tuesday) makes the text of the so-called "Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment", part of HJR1, which is a proposed constitutional amendment concerning property tax.
You assert that:

"The amendment has to pass with the same language. By adding it to other legislation, by default you're changing the language."

and you go on to say:

"While it could pass the legislature this year as an amendment on an amendment, it still won't be on the ballot this November. Instead, it would have passed the House once with the same language. The Senate would also have to pass the property tax amendment with SJR-7's text attached to it. Then the clock would start over. Both amendments would have to pass a separately elected legislature next time as well. Then we make it to the ballot box."

There would be very little doubt about that IF the text of the proposed property tax amendment were being amended to incorporate the text of the amendment dealing with marriage. But arguably that is not what is happening. We have a single RESOLUTION. As amended by Turner's amendment, it talks about two separate amendments, and doesn't mix their respective contents. So there is a non-frivolous argument to be made that, should the House end up accepting Turner's amendment and passing the amended resolution, the effect would be that the "Marriage Protection Amendment" would have been passed by both Houses of the General Assembly in two separately elected sessions, and could go to the voters. The property tax amendment would continue its journey.

To recap, because we have one resolution covering two separate amendments, a novel, but not necessarily invalid or unconstitutional situation, the matter is simply not all that clear.

I'm aware of some additional procedural convolutions, including the possibility of conference committee, which while I would consider them improbable, nonetheless are not reasonably off the table.

I agree with you that if Speaker Bauer were to make a ruling that the amendment was out of order for not being germane (a concept different from the "different amendment language" concept rooted in the constitutional amendment process), his ruling were challenged) and he were sustained, that would effectively end the matter of Turner's attempts.

That's my understanding. I am not being an advocate either way as to the legal/procedural matters involved. I am simply saying that from my own reading, I must continue to say that the certainly isn't there.

Bil,

I really do hope that you are right and that it is dead; it really is what should happen for the community.

But we still need to stay on guard. Very recently we have seen the power of the other side's lobby and they still have that political muscle. We have to make sure that that muscle isn't flexed again when the whole community isn't expecting it.

Political muscle can bring the sky down.

At least Kevin Raider, and likely other media, have reported that Speaker Bauer will not call up HJR1 for second reading this evening, and if so, no opportunity to amend. The property tax amendment possibilities are not dead because of Senate action. SJR7, dealing with marriage will come over from the Senate and although HJR8 (the same text) is dead, the question of whether or not Representative Pelath will entertain it in committee (he has said he will not) continues. There also remains the reasonable possibility that an attempt to put two amendments (marriage and property tax) in the same resolution will be repeated. So essentially the same questions that I feel are as not as clear as they may seem to some will remain, at least through the end of February.

There has been very little likelihood that SJR7 would survive since last July. But when the consequences are so dire, "very little" is cold comfort.

I have not heard what seems to me an authoritative analysis of the proceedings to date. It is wrong to confuse the text of the resolution with the text of the proposed amendment. Thus if it were legal to combine two resolutions, there would be no problem with one being the present marriage discrimination amendment and the other a tax amendment at another state of the process.

It is my understanding that such combination is strictly against Indiana law, and practice. Bauer should rule it out of order. But most rulings may be overruled by a vote of the house in one way or another. And if that happens, do not expect the State Supreme Court to thwart the will of the majority on some flimsy pretext such as that the act was unconstitutional.

The Republican leaders are clearly prepared to do absolutely anything to pass this evil text. They have staked a lot on it and were sure a couple of years ago that they had a winning strategy and victory was within their grasp. Now it is all slipping away. It is very likely that they will lose (not that we should sit on our hands for the next couple of weeks). It is most likely that their window of opportunity has passed; that they will never again be able to motivate the numbers necessary to move this bigotry forward. With their failure people will begin, as they already have, to see this crusade for what it was, bigotry and a lust for power that were prepared to trample people's basic right to life, liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness, for their own ends. That does not auger well for the political future of these men and women.

I can only credit desperation for the stupidity of trying to mix this up with the tax issue. "Marriage" is an abstract concept that can be used to move Hoosiers, and other people. "Taxes" are very concrete in the loss of homes, equity, and disposable income. Few Hoosiers, faced with doubling, or tripling property taxes, will choose to sacrifice the possibility of solving that problem in favor of "protecting marriage"; those who have begun to see through the sham of such "protection" certainly will not, and they are not likely to forgive someone who puts their home at risk for such a reason.

Too bad they've already hedged their bets by moving on to the next wedge - mexicans.

We can discuss that it is illegal all day long. It doesn't change the fact that Republicans are using it to rally the troops with fear.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

SJR7 can't be dead!

I think I'm going to put out a mini-YouTube documentary entitled "Dr. Alex Love: How I learned to stop worrying and love SJR7". It'll be an in-depth look at the peculiar strain of Stockholm Syndrome that arises out of being constantly threatened with being immortalized in a Constitutional document, how gays hate the intention but love the attention, and how we're beholden to these amendments even when they're gone.

Oh, wait, that's an awesome post idea. Don't steal it, Bil!

I think Alex is onto something. I didn't realize that I and others who have taken on the cause for what we thought was for the benefit of other folks in situations like me and my partner feel are unjust, namely SJR7, has simply been a sign of growing dependency for a "fix" on some of the more detailed aspects of things like the second sentence to satisfy my otherwise meaningless (for me) and aging existance. The fact that I will no longer be relevant to anyone when and If SJR7 haunts me constantly, but I've gotten over things before. I can do it again, I'm sure.

Here is my thought.. On one hand, its "too good to be true" going through my mind that it might be all over makes me strangely uneasy. It seems like I hardly remember a time when we weren't fighting SJR7. But Golly how great it would be if it were true.
But, let us consider this logically in a game of what if.
As Ive said before, I wouldn't put anything past these right wing nut jobs. I am constantly amazed at the spectacular contortion acts they come up with to keep their hate filled agenda spewing forward. How they are able to keep it going is a mystery. So nothing surprises me anymore with these guys. I've woken up in the morning, having a perfectly lovely day, and *Blam!*, I find they have found some strange loophole and the fight is on again.
But suppose it happens again that way? What if they have a "secret weapon"? What if they changed the rules while we weren't looking... What if..
It seems that it would be best if we error on the side of being prepaired for ANYTHING, than to drop our guard down and be surprised. Better Safe than sorry I always say... Well .. I usually always say anyway...Err.. I've said it before.. that's all that's important..
All's I'm say'n is.. I'll sleep much better after the session is over in March. Till then, I've got one eye on West Market Street at all times..