Indiana GOP “delays” anti-gay marriage vote

Timothy Kincaid

February 8th, 2013

Back in February 2011, the Republican-led Indiana legislature overwhelming supported a bill which would bring an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment up for a vote. But in order to amend that state’s constitution, two separately elected legislatures have to support the bill, which means that it has to be voted on again either this year or next.

This year is off the table. (

Legislative leaders, even as they believe it is time for voters to weigh in on the issue, decided to postpone until next year the necessary and final vote in the Indiana General Assembly.

Their reason? Well there’s the public reason and the reason I think is real – and, oddly, they are a variation of each other.

I think that the Indiana GOP (unlike the Iowa GOP) is not suicidal. And they’ve pretty much figured out that not only would an amendment lose in a 2014 election, but that it just might take the Party down with it. So, they’re going to find some reason not to vote on this beast.

The public reason is that they want to wait until after the Supreme Court rules on Proposition 8.

“Prudence dictates that we wait,” Bosma said.

If lawmakers had voted this year, he said, “we could find ourselves in the very inadvisable situation of having a matter on the ballot in 2014 that has been ruled unconstitutional and there is no means of removing it from the ballot.”

Which is, in a way, sort of the same thing. Both are based on recognition that society has moved on, that equality is now increasingly seen as constitutionally protected and that the Supreme Court may well find it to be so.


February 8th, 2013

I disagree with Kincaid’s analysis. I think he is falling prey to the same fallacious thinking that trapped our opponents: Because we won the last battle, we are now unstoppable.

We won in 4 states last year, but none was nearly conservative as IN. NC is more like IN in its conservatism and we lost there 61-39. Now, I think we will do a lot better in IN, in part because the vote would take place on a general election day, but victory in IN is absolutely not a certain or even likely outcome.

The IN legislature is going to vote this on the ballot next year. No question. I think the real reason the IN legislature delayed is because there is no advantage to the anti-equality side in establishing that this will definitely be on the ballot in 2014. In MN, the legislature did just that, leaving a year and a half for campaigning. This gave us a lot of time to turn things around and score an upset. In IN, they have learned their lesson and they will vote this on the ballot 6 or 7 months before. They want the campaign to be a short, mad scramble, characterized by drive-by scare ads. Whether this works or not, will depend on whether we are able to follow the MN playbook and proceed with our campaign now as if this thing is already on the ballot.


February 9th, 2013

I wonder… what would happen if they put it on the 2014 ballot *now* and the Supreme Court ruled this summer that all state bans are unconstitutional? Would it still be on the ballot? Could it be implemented, and have to be challenged separately?


February 9th, 2013

According to Nate Silver’s analysis, the ban in question in Indiana would fail since it also bans civil unions as well. If the legislature wants to amend it they would have to start over again and the soonest it would appear on the ballot would be 2016.

In regards to the campaigns in other states, remember too that Washington and Maryland had campaigns that were only 6/7 months and we still won.

Lindoro Almaviva

February 9th, 2013

Having interacted with Bosma a couple of times I can say he truly is THAT stupid. He is self centered and has a serious case of the entitlement issues that affect so many white GOPers from his generation.


February 10th, 2013

Dale, your arguments make sense to me. I have often wondered how NC would have come out if the vote had been during the general election, bringing out more than just the rabidly anti-gay vote and the handful of active pro-gay supporters. If what Stefan says is true, that would make extra sense. That aspect should have been emphasized in NC, and a longer campaign might have taken the time to see that was really what was needed, since their appeal to the harms the amendment might cause to straits was falling on deaf ears. Of course, given the state of NC’s current government, the amendment would likely have passed; a narrower margin hardly matters if you still lose.

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, never shared)

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


Latest Posts


Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.