Comments on: Mitch on the Marriage Amendment http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2007/12/31/mitch-on-the-marriage-amendment/ HoosierAccess.com Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:47:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Brian Sikma http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2007/12/31/mitch-on-the-marriage-amendment/#comment-865 Brian Sikma Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:45:18 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2007/12/31/mitch-on-the-marriage-amendment/#comment-865 I don't think SJR 7 and property tax reform are mutually exclusive issues. While property taxes and local government reform will dominate this session of the General Assembly, there will be time to pass SJR 7. Lengthy hearings and hours of debate should not be necessary for the legislature to redo what it has already done several times before. Simply pass SJR 7 and put it on the ballot for people to vote on. It is highly probably that the General Assembly will be hearing a few bills that are not related to property taxes and there is no reason why SJR 7 can't be one of those measures. Estimates are that 80% of Hoosiers support a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage as one man and one woman. This is a political and principled winner that 27 states have already passed. Individuals that do not support SJR 7 are, by and large, not individuals who would vote for Republicans anyway. Passing SJR 7 and enacting property tax reform would make for a very successful legislative session that incumbents can go home and brag about. The marriage amendment is only controversial with the political class that finds every attempt to move beyond business as usual dangerous. It's time to move beyond timid politics and towards solutions that Hoosiers want and need. I don’t think SJR 7 and property tax reform are mutually exclusive issues. While property taxes and local government reform will dominate this session of the General Assembly, there will be time to pass SJR 7. Lengthy hearings and hours of debate should not be necessary for the legislature to redo what it has already done several times before. Simply pass SJR 7 and put it on the ballot for people to vote on.

It is highly probably that the General Assembly will be hearing a few bills that are not related to property taxes and there is no reason why SJR 7 can’t be one of those measures.

Estimates are that 80% of Hoosiers support a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage as one man and one woman. This is a political and principled winner that 27 states have already passed. Individuals that do not support SJR 7 are, by and large, not individuals who would vote for Republicans anyway. Passing SJR 7 and enacting property tax reform would make for a very successful legislative session that incumbents can go home and brag about.

The marriage amendment is only controversial with the political class that finds every attempt to move beyond business as usual dangerous. It’s time to move beyond timid politics and towards solutions that Hoosiers want and need.

]]> By: Scott http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2007/12/31/mitch-on-the-marriage-amendment/#comment-856 Scott Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:43:59 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2007/12/31/mitch-on-the-marriage-amendment/#comment-856 I don't disagree, mind you, but I hear a lot from self-described social conservatives (apparently not at IFI) that are upset that the marriage amendment appears ready to die, and the Governor (who in the southern parts of the state campaigned strongly as a social conservative) is not going to lift a finger to save it. Instead, Mitch makes these statements that can be interpreted in many ways. Curt Smith sees them as the Governor "standing strong" on the marriage amendment. Chris Douglas sees them as the governor distancing himself from it. It takes some calculation to be making statements that can be seen by both sides as being exactly what they want to hear. I am not sure that sort of political wordsmithing can be maintained going into the election as the amendment dies and someone like Eric Miller revs his proverbial campaign engines. I don’t disagree, mind you, but I hear a lot from self-described social conservatives (apparently not at IFI) that are upset that the marriage amendment appears ready to die, and the Governor (who in the southern parts of the state campaigned strongly as a social conservative) is not going to lift a finger to save it.

Instead, Mitch makes these statements that can be interpreted in many ways. Curt Smith sees them as the Governor “standing strong” on the marriage amendment. Chris Douglas sees them as the governor distancing himself from it. It takes some calculation to be making statements that can be seen by both sides as being exactly what they want to hear.

I am not sure that sort of political wordsmithing can be maintained going into the election as the amendment dies and someone like Eric Miller revs his proverbial campaign engines.

]]> By: Michael Jezierski http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2007/12/31/mitch-on-the-marriage-amendment/#comment-855 Michael Jezierski Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:41:40 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2007/12/31/mitch-on-the-marriage-amendment/#comment-855 I'd love for SJR-7 to get passed so the PEOPLE can have their say on it ONCE AND FOR ALL!!! However what issue led to the Great 2007 Voter revolt? Property Taxes. It would take nothing - just bring it to a vote, Hair. David Long will bring it to a vote, and it'll pass the Senate. Again. The House appears a few votes short right now, unfortunately. And yes I know one of "our own" is on the wrong side of that issue. I’d love for SJR-7 to get passed so the PEOPLE can have their say on it ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

However what issue led to the Great 2007 Voter revolt? Property Taxes.

It would take nothing - just bring it to a vote, Hair. David Long will bring it to a vote, and it’ll pass the Senate. Again. The House appears a few votes short right now, unfortunately. And yes I know one of “our own” is on the wrong side of that issue.

]]> By: Joel Harris http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2007/12/31/mitch-on-the-marriage-amendment/#comment-850 Joel Harris Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:02:04 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2007/12/31/mitch-on-the-marriage-amendment/#comment-850 Why do you consider this "calculated ambiguity"? I interpret these statements this way: "It sure would be nice if we could do that, but I sure cannot afford to expend the political capital to force this issue when I have the property tax and other issues on the table." Mitch may be wrong, but I would ask "social conservatives" what issues they consider the most important for the legislature to addresses in this short session? Why do you consider this “calculated ambiguity”? I interpret these statements this way:

“It sure would be nice if we could do that, but I sure cannot afford to expend the political capital to force this issue when I have the property tax and other issues on the table.”

Mitch may be wrong, but I would ask “social conservatives” what issues they consider the most important for the legislature to addresses in this short session?

]]>