Anderson Paper On Rep. Austin’s SJR7 Vote
The Anderson Herald Bulletin posted this article last night on the AFA-IN PAC billboard that calls attention to Rep. Terri Austin’s (D) failure to protect marriage last session. Aside from some factual errors, the article is a good thing to see coming from Rep. Austin’s district. Hopefully she will realize that the “facts” she based her decision on last year were really “opinions” that were based on a misunderstanding of the real facts.
According to the article:
“Who voted against protecting marriage?” reads the billboard. “Terri Austin.”
Austin, D-District 36, says the billboard is “unfortunate.” The head of the AFA’s Indiana branch says that the organization is focusing on her because prior to voting against the bill she came out against same-sex marriage.
“We put that up to remind people of how Rep. Austin voted,” said Micah Clark, head of AFA Indiana. “She may have to vote on that issue again, and we want people to know how she voted last time.”
But Austin stands by her vote. She is opposed to same-sex marriage, but voted against the bill because it may have put in jeopardy the rights of unwed domestic partners — specifically, in regard to domestic violence laws, and how employers provide insurance to employees who live in a domestic partnership.
“This amendment was not a one-issue amendment,” she said. “The second section and its wording was very controversial. Numerous legal scholars presented conflicting opinions about the meaning, the intent and the consequences of the wording.”
Oh, so the wording was controversial? The “legal scholars” who attacked SJR 7 attacked it on the basis that it would prevent same-sex couples from having the protection of domestic violence laws. The specter of this threat arose from some confusion in Ohio about the wording of that state’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
As it turns out, the Ohio amendment had wording that was different than the wording of SJR 7 (Strike One), the lower courts in which the confusion occurred were a small minority of Ohio courts that handled similar challenges (Strike Two), and the Ohio Supreme Court ultimately over road the lower courts and allowed the domestic violence protections to stand (Strike Three).
(Read more below the fold)
The second part of the bill, HRJ7, states, “ … Indiana law may not be construed to require that martial status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
I had to chuckle when I saw the phrase “HRJ7″. Perhaps is is merely a typo and in any case it is not substantively related to the root arguments, but HJR 7(there is no HRJ designation) of the 2007 session doesn’t deal with marriage. Instead it deals with the constitutional right to hunt and fish. The Senate has always been the first body to act on the marriage amendment and the designation SJR 7 remains even when the measure goes to the House.
“Someone offered me some money to put the sign up,” Alexander said. “It helps me pay my property taxes.”
Mr. Alexander is the building’s owner. He says he does support SJR 7 but according the article he rented the sign space because of financial reasons. It is a little humorous that the two biggest battles of this session, property taxes and marriage amendment, are interrelated in this story.
Leave a Reply