Bil Browning

You never know when a wedge issue will come in handy

Filed By Bil Browning | December 04, 2007 7:41 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: amendment, Brandt Hershman, hypocritical motherfuckers, Indiana, LGBT civil rights, marriage, SJR-7, State Senate

The Indiana proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions will be back again this session. Keep in mind this state senator, Mr. Family Values himself, allegedly forced his wife to have an abortion before filing for divorce one week later.

Sen. Brandt Hershman will file SJR 7, the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, in the 2008 General Assembly but it may not get a hearing.

Hershman say he plans to ask the Indiana House to take up the matter first and House Speaker Pat Bauer indicated months ago that he things the House has higher priorities. Bauer committed to a vote last year but not this year.

Hershman got the resolution through the state Senate last year only to see it die in the House and has no appetite to repeat the experience.

“I’ve been through it three times,” said Hershman, who also won previous approval in the Senate.

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.

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | December 4, 2007 8:02 PM

The "protect the sanctity of marriage" crowd should really be fighting to protect marriage from themselves. Far too many of them seem to be engaged in all sorts of things like adultery, divorce, multiple marriages, that are at the root of the problems facing marriage. Its the gays that are fighting to save the institution.

Hay nice guy kills his kid then dumps his wife.

a real plier of the community.

let me guess he doesn't believe in the death penalty.

Good luck
hope the ban doesn't pass....

Susan Robins

The fact that SJR-7 would be back in some form or fashion was an unquestionable certainty ...

... but come January, we will see how feverishly the RR fights to get it passed. ... What hate-and-lies PR campaign(s) will they resort to? ... Even more importantly, what will they be willing to bargain away to get it passed?

I think this is a good sign for us, actually.

This means that Senate leadership more than likely told Hershman that they weren't going to work on SJR-7 if it wasn't going anywhere. After all, they have property taxes to deal with.

By throwing this into Bauer's lap, they're assuming that he'll hold it up again and they can blame him for stopping the process.

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | December 5, 2007 10:04 AM

In a couple of my own pieces of SJR-7 earlier this year, I said I thought that Senator Hershman had been hiding/revising some history about where it came from (the original version of the Federal Marriage Amendment), because it revealed disagreements and confusion among conservatives themselves over a number of key claims. Later I backed off a bit, tending to think that perhaps Hershman himself had been at least partly mislead when he was handed a ready-made amendment with the marching orders: “Don’t change a word”.

Now I don’t really know. One thing is sure: Despite attempts to frame all of this in terms of “traditional marriage is endangered” and “the unelected activist judges are coming!” approach, the Senator is now aware that a number of things, especially concerning the second sentence, simply are not adding up. Maybe a number of legislators were asleep at the switch when the measure was first introduced, but that is rapidly changing.

Everybody stay vigilant, though. Those who want to push this through full speed ahead to have a wedge issue on the ballot in November 2008 still depend on the fact that a lot of folks just dismiss the language as so much legal but necessary gobbledygook to be sorted out by the COURTS. Yes, the same awful “unelected activist courts” that they don’t want involved in fairness questions.

But, then again, who said they have to be logical?


I didn't know so many here at Bilerico were pro-life! Perhaps we can work together this session on protecting the unborn. When do we start digging into the dirty little secrets of all the pro-abortion legislators??