Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Indiana Senate votes for constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality

Timothy Kincaid

January 28th, 2010

The full Indiana Senate has voted to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. (WISH)

The state Senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage on a 38-10 vote late Thursday afternoon. The last time the Senate passed the proposal, the Indiana House blocked the effort to send it to a referendum.

The bill is unlikely to advance out of committee in the house, which is controlled by Democrats. Were it to do so, it would then need to be passed again by both houses after another election before being presented to the voters.

The bill, as presented, would ban both same-sex marriage and any “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage“.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Robert in San Diego
January 28th, 2010 | LINK

That’s great, in order for a constitutional amendment it must pass both chambers 2 times before going to the voters, You think my home state of California could of thought of something so important like that. So lets see here, denying Californians equal rights takes a 1 time majority vote but to try and pass a budget or anything else requires a 2/3 vote. WAY TO GO CALIFORNIA!

Eddie89
January 28th, 2010 | LINK

Indeed, other states like Massachusetts and Connecticut also require very extreme and deliberate measures to modify their State Constitutions.

Perhaps it’s because California is a “newer” state and it’s founders wanted to be less “east coast” and so they made it possible to make changes to the constitution like it was nothing.

Sad… :-(

Lynn David
January 28th, 2010 | LINK

I forget who is on the House committee; but the last time one of the democrats was a woman who was fence sitting. She literally broke into tears when she voted, not for us evidently, but wondering what her vote might do to her chances for re-election. We’ll have to hope someone isn’t in that position again. If it gets to the whole House it will pass, democrats will vote for it.

Timothy Kincaid
January 29th, 2010 | LINK

Lynn David,

Interestingly, I don’t believe that there is a single legislator in any state who lost their reelection after voting for marriage or civil unions. Or so I read recently.

Lynn David
January 29th, 2010 | LINK

I don’t think there was here either. But it is back in the same committee, the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee. They have two joint resolutions before them dealing with the definition of marriage, HJR-5 (the one like that the Senate passed) and HJR-7. Though both are nearly identical.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/PDF/RES/HJ0005.1.pdf

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/PDF/RES/HJ0007.1.pdf

That committee has a lot of stuff to wade through
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2010&request=getCommittee&committee_name=Rules+and+Legislative+Procedures&chamber=H

Mortanius
January 29th, 2010 | LINK

Will just have to say “Shame on you Indiana, Shame on you”. Living here I know what goes on. It is the same 3-4 individuals who submit these bills even before the end of the first day of the session.

I find it amazing that at least here in the most northern of the southern states that bills like this need to pass two separate legislation session before advancing to the people for a simple majority vote. I have always said you don’t vote for civil rights, much less a simple majority vote.

To think that Pence was considering (maybe still) running against Bayh and Pence, as we know is one of the leaders of the anti-gay movement/teabaggers/ultra conservative.

Donnchadh
January 29th, 2010 | LINK

Just a reminder: in its present wording, it seems to ban the state from recognising marriage of any sort.

AJD
January 29th, 2010 | LINK

This is a sad development, but it’s a relief that Indiana doesn’t have a ballot initiative process like a lot of states out West do. It’s weird how the the Progressives (or was the the Populists? I don’t remember) in the early 1900s thought ballot initiatives were such a great way to rein in the stranglehold of big business on politics and the economy, but they never considered that, uh, the other side can use them too.

Kyle
January 29th, 2010 | LINK

Geaux Saints!

Ray
January 29th, 2010 | LINK

My husband is an Indiana native and he taught me that phrase Mortanius used about Indiana being the most northern of the southern states. We live in California but have ties to quite a few people in southern Indiana. It was quite a revelation to our Hoosier friends when, at age 86, my husband wrote to tell what seemed like most of Vincennes that he’d gotten married for the first time in his life. We’ve been together for 26 years but before me, my husband had a partner for 32 years who died at the age of 75. So it wasn’t a secret about my husband being gay.

We were inundated with well-wishes after our wedding announcement. The grapevine went into overdrive and people native to Indiana who had long ago moved away called and wrote to extend congratulations. There is hope in Indiana. It consists of the goodness of people like our friends, all of whom are straight. It’s just too bad their leaders don’t know about them, or simply don’t care.

Lynn David
January 30th, 2010 | LINK

Well, Vincennes has always been known as a bit of a trendsetter in Indiana… oh, yeah, sure…. (I live on a farm just north of there.)

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.