Bil Browning

IN marriage amendment dies in committee

Filed By Bil Browning | February 24, 2010 7:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: gay marriage, House of Representatives, Indiana democrats, Indiana Equality, marriage amendment, same-sex marriage

Now that the Indiana legislature is wrapping up their business for the year, Indiana Equality is claiming victory in this years' marriage amendment skirmish. From an e-blast:

Senate Joint Resolution 13, the Marriage Discrimination Amendment, has died in the Indiana State House.

Due in large part to your support and actions, the proposal to amend Indiana's state constitution was stopped when the Indiana House of Representatives did not conduct a hearing on this discriminatory proposal.
...
A tremendous thank you is due to all who joined in this battle - the coalition members of Indiana Equality Action, corporate and academic allies, clergy from around the state, legal experts, organized labor, media outlets, and bloggers - each made invaluable contributions. Indiana.gifThese friends of equality have ensured that discrimination and hate were not permanently embedded into our great state constitution.

Sadly, it's looking like Indiana Democrats could possibly lose control of the House after the next election. If so, the strategy of letting the bill languish in committee without a vote won't work; we'll actually have to muster up pro-equality Democrats who will vote the party platform and support the LGBT community. We're short on those right now.


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.


Judas Peckerwood | February 25, 2010 2:55 AM

"...we'll actually have to muster up pro-equality Democrats who will vote the party platform and support the LGBT community."

Yeah, well given the Democratic Party's general cowardice on LGBT equality, I would suggest working to bring Republicans and Independents on board, too.

Legislation is one method to achieve equal rights for all members of the LGBT community. In order be successful the LGBT community needs all the supporters and allies we can get, this includes Republicans.

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | March 5, 2010 4:57 PM

"In order be successful the LGBT community needs all the supporters and allies we can get, this includes Republicans."

Indeed, but its difficult to get the word out to moderate Republicans that while nobody was watching, their more conservative colleagues were talked into endorsing without question a revised amendment (SJR-13) more draconian than its predecessor (SJR-7), Folks like Republican State Senator Brandt Hershman (now apparently setting his sights on the U.S. House of Representatives claimed that SJR-7 was far more moderate in what it did (muzzle tose nasty "unelected activist judges) but leaving the elected legislature free to enact even civil unions). We were fortunate, he insisted, that his colleagues hadn't chosen a prohibition on lawmakers, like other states had done.

But so much for reasoned Republican moderation: The new version now copies that awful stuff from other states.

And not a wimpter from the Grand Old Party. Nor the mainstream media for that matter. Too much trouble to lean the details, I guess.

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | March 5, 2010 4:57 PM

"In order be successful the LGBT community needs all the supporters and allies we can get, this includes Republicans."

Indeed, but its difficult to get the word out to moderate Republicans that while nobody was watching, their more conservative colleagues were talked into endorsing without question a revised amendment (SJR-13) more draconian than its predecessor (SJR-7), Folks like Republican State Senator Brandt Hershman (now apparently setting his sights on the U.S. House of Representatives claimed that SJR-7 was far more moderate in what it did (muzzle tose nasty "unelected activist judges) but leaving the elected legislature free to enact even civil unions). We were fortunate, he insisted, that his colleagues hadn't chosen a prohibition on lawmakers, like other states had done.

But so much for reasoned Republican moderation: The new version now copies that awful stuff from other states.

And not a wimpter from the Grand Old Party. Nor the mainstream media for that matter. Too much trouble to lean the details, I guess.