By: Brian Sikma

When traditional marriage supporters advocated for a state marriage amendment in 2008, Speaker Pat Bauer argued that such a constitutional amendment was unnecessary and redundant in light of Indiana’s existing state law.  Proponents of the amendment responded by saying that the same judicial reasoning that allowed courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere to challenge the constitutionality of marriage laws could be used by Indiana courts.  The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and impose that new definition on the state proves the Speaker wrong, and marriage supporters right.

Unlike Massachusetts, a state known in recent decades for being highly “progressive” in both fiscal and social policy, Iowa is a mid-west state whose citizens have many of the same values that Hoosiers have.  One may have expected courts in states like California and Massachusetts to have activist judiciaries more than willing to redefine the definition of marriage.  But Iowa is not a state that would have been considered a prime candidate for this sort of judicial misrule.

Indiana legislators and policy makers should take close note of the Iowa decision and realize that what happened there could happen here.  Marriage is a fundamental institution in society and the state must act whenever necessary to protect its status and definition.  Without its presence as a bedrock unit in the makeup of society, our state cannot expect to move forward into a prosperous future.  The strength of our state, the well-being of our children, and the prosperity of our communities depend on our ability to protect marriage from those who would redefine it into something it has never been, and will never be able to successfully be.

Although this session of the General Assembly failed to act on a marriage amendment, with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Bray (R) being responsible for his committee’s failure to hear the matter in the Senate, the Iowa ruling will hopefully spur legislative leaders to action next session.

By: Brian Sikma

When the Indiana House-and primarily Speaker Pat Bauer and Rules Committee Chairman Scott Pelath- failed to pass SJR 7 (the proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman) last year, they effectively reset the entire effort to protect marriage in Indiana.  The process of placing the definition of marriage in the state constitution starts anew this year with this session.

Since 2004 the Senate has passed a marriage amendment 4 times (2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008) and this year a new face is carrying the proposal forward.   Freshman Senator Marlin Stutzman (R-Howe) is the original author of SJR 15, a slightly revised version of past proposed amendments.  The language was revised to be nearly identical with that of Kentucky’s marriage amendment, which voters placed in that state’s constitution in 2004.  The tested wording of the Kentucky amendment should help overcome concerns that some had about all the implications contained in the language of SJR 7.

With the state facing a slumping economy that is not only causing high unemployment but also creating a decline in government revenues forcing tough budget decisions, some may question whether or not it is appropriate to consider a social issue this session.  Indeed, economic issues should be a first-priority item for the General Assembly.  But there is nothing to limit the legislature’s focus to only one first-priority item. Even as he works to manage the size of the state budget and carefully cut wasteful spending and maximize the funding that will be appropriated this year, Governor Mitch Daniels is moving ahead with advancing his property tax caps in the constitution plan (I am not necessarily endorsing this plan-I am emphasizing leadership).  He understands that leadership demands that more than one important issue be dealt with at one time, and the members of the General Assembly would do well to take note of this.

(Read More Below the Fold)

In 2004, when it came to issues on the minds of voters, Iraq was front and center.  The economy was doing fairly well though when it came to our wallets, the price of gas, not yet breaking $2.00 a gallon nationally, was beginning to worry quite a few.

Down home on the state level, voters cared about the direction of the state and wondered if we were ready to break free free 16 years of Democrat rule in the Governor’s Office.  Turns out, we were.  Republicans were able to run on change (yep, change started in Indiana four years prior to becoming cool to do it as a national candidate) and they came out in control of all three legislative bodies.

2004 was also the year gay marriage bans sprung up and passed in most every state they were on the ballot.  Republicans were able to use that as leverage in 2005 to pass the first phase of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage here.

Two years later, national politics and GOP missteps laid waste to Republicans gains in the Indiana House and the GOP became the minority making passing the second and final phase of the the amendment process in a Pat Bauer run House near impossible.  And with Bauer, the process died starting the constitutional cycle for traditional marriage advocates all over again.

Times have changed a lot since 2006, nationally and locally.  But one group hasn’t given up the fight.

(Read more after the leap)

Sometimes you have to wonder if the Democrats ever really believed they had a shot at beating Mitch Daniels. If they did, those faint hopes grew extremely dim once JLT officially beat the establishment’s chosen candidate, Jim Schellinger. Their hopes were all but dashed once Dennie Ray Oxley II joined the Team JLT and her merry band of fire baton twirlers.

It seems that once Dennie Ray opens his mouth, something fun for the righty blogosphere spits out. First, it was him saying that his fingerprints are on each of the bills that go through the House during the session. As Mike McDaniel rightly noted on last week’s Indiana Week in Review, it’s only because Pat Bauer told him to physically carry a bill from one place to another.

But Dennie Ray’s latest incident is enough to make even us chuckle even more with delight and a person I consider a good friend (even though he blogs for the other side of the aisle), Bil Browning, captured it all in his coverage of the State Democrat Convention when Dennie Ray and Baton Twirler Jill spoke to the Stonewall Democrats Caucus (their version of Log-Cabins for those who may not know), in his write up for the Huffington Post. Now, fellow Director and also a good friend, Mike Jezierski also covered it last night, but let’s dig into Dennie Ray’s statements, especially those regarding SJR-7 a little deeper shall we?

(Read more after the leap )

Professional Acquaintance of Hoosier Access, Bil Browning of Bilerico, wrote this piece in The Huffington Post:

“[Jill Long Thompson] opened with talk about getting Indiana back on track and continued on to talk about civil rights. “No matter what caucus you talk to, civil rights are a top priority. For some caucuses it becomes more important. We don’t need more people who are on the wrong track when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and what God wants,” she said. “You will have a friend in the Governor’s office every hour of the day.”

When she introduced Rep Oxley, he didn’t get the same standing ovation Long Thompson had received. He started out talking about the economy and segued into his experience and his vote on SJR-7.

[More below the fold]

Hoosier Access was able to get a hold of letter submitted to the South Bend Tribune by a citizen who has been trying to reach Speaker Bauer’s office to request that the Speaker stop holding up SJR 7, the marriage amendment.  The story here is pretty amazing, though it is not necessarily surprising.

 On Tuesday, January 24 I called the statehouse to speak with the office of Pat Bauer with regard to SJR 7, the marriage amendment.  My intentions were to respectfully voice my support of the legislation, since Pat Bauer is the sole individual in the House who can bring it to a full floor vote.  In addition I wanted to remind him of his campaign promise made in October in 2006 (see the following quote from a campaign press release)

 “If I am elected Speaker of the Indiana House after the November 7 general election, I will allow committee meetings, floor debate and a final vote in that chamber on a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriages in Indiana”

 When the call center answered, I asked to speak with the office of Pat Bauer.  She asked “regarding what?”  In a polite manner I said “SJR7, the Marriage Amendment”.  She replied “one moment please” as if I was being transferred.  The next thing that I know I am disconnected.  At first I think that it’s an error so I immediately call back.  They hang up on me again!  After prolonged frustration I finally get someone at the call center to tell me that Bauer’s office is not accepting any phone calls.  In a calm manner, I ask “why?” She replies that it is the directive they were given with no explanation.  So I asked her if she thought it was ridiculous, that a citizen of the state of Indiana should be denied the right to speak with our government officials.  She agreed but said there is nothing she could do about it.  The only advice she could provide was to write an email.  

 I am highly disappointed that one our high-ranking state officials would act in such a manner.  Especially considering the position that Speaker Bauer took when campaigning in 2006.  This is exactly the kind of behavior that has caused our society to become so disgusted with our federal government.  It’s too bad that our state officials are following suite.  I did write an email communication, but feel like my voice is unimportant to Pat Bauer.  And what about all the citizens of our state whom have no access to email, or don’t even know how to send an email? Is it honorable to completely ignore them?  What a sad day for the State of Indiana.

Can Pat Bauer say “Minority Leader”?  This story is unfortunate on two levels.  Number one, the marriage amendment should go to the floor of the House were it will probably pass and the people will get a chance to vote on it this fall.  The merits of the amendment speak for themselves (I’ve discussed them elsewhere here).  Number two, regardless of the issue at stake here, why is Pat Bauer not interested in hearing what the people have to say?  This is arrogance and it’s unacceptable.

This was released yesterday by Eric Miller and Advance America:

Legislative Tragedy – SJR 8 –
Repeal of Property Taxes!!

On Tuesday, January 22nd at approximately 5:40 pm the Chairman of the Senate Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee, Senator David Long, started a public hearing on SJR 8, the Constitutional Amendment to Repeal Property Taxes and a new bill, Senate Bill 100, which would set up a study committee on the repeal of homestead property taxes. Senator Long is also the leader of the State Senate.

 

Committee Hearing Shuts Out Public!
Senator Long held a committee hearing on January 8th on SJR 8 that permitted the public to testify both for and against SJR 8. This was the right thing to do.

However, on January 22nd Senator Long refused to let the citizens who came to the committee hearing to testify on either SJR 8 or the new bill, Senate Bill 100. After a long opening statement where he demeaned those who wanted to repeal property taxes, he proceeded to discuss the new bill, Senate Bill 100, which would set up a study committee. This bill had never been discussed in a public committee hearing prior to January 22nd. Senator Long abused his position as the Chairman of the Rules Committee and refused to allow any of the more than 20 citizens who came to the hearing to testify on Senate Bill 100.

(Read more of this below the fold)

House Joint Resolution 1was the proposed Constitutional amendment that contained permanent caps on property tax rates in Indiana.  The measure was part of Gov. Daniels’ solid plan for dealing with the current property tax crisis.  Unfortunately, HJR 1 effectively died last night when Speaker Bauer failed to call it down for a vote.

Some are reporting that the move by House Republicans to try and insert the language of SJR 7(the marriage amendment) into the property tax amendment is what killed the measure.  However, a House source has clarified that Rep. Tim Harris’s proposed amendment to HJR 1 was what really made Bauer kill the measure.  Rep. Harris’s “controversial” amendment proposed the complete elimination of all residential property taxes.

Note that Rep. Harris’s proposal was not that we eliminate all property taxes or immediately eliminate residential property taxes.  It merely set in motion the legislative ball on the process to eliminate residential property taxes, something that the House Republican Caucus has seriously considered, and the Governor has shown open-mindedness towards should it be shown that the numbers work with current revenue levels.  Further, the Governor’s plan will still be able to pass the General Assembly this session without the passage of HJR 1.

They may not have the majority, but they sure are playing hard. Indiana House Republicans are using some pretty good parliamentary tactics to bring the marriage amendment to the floor (see here and here). On the subject of hate crimes legislation, Rep. Jackie Walorksi (R-Lakeville) introduced an amendment to the utterly repugnant HB 1076, that would make it a hate crime to commit an abortion on a viable fetus.

Democrats will probably once again fail to call down the hate crimes bill for a 3rd reading out of a fear for the consequences of A) passing the amendment or B) defeating the amendment.

Today marks the last day that legislation that started in one of the chambers can pass that chamber and move on to the other side of the building.

Last session, Speaker Pat “The Hair” Bauer tried to kill the marriage amendment by keeping it in a committee and preventing it from ever getting to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

Bauer knew that, if it ever made it to the floor, it would pass handily.

The committee was a convenient mechanism to keep the amendment off of the floor and allow the Democrats to avoid going on the record about the amendment (and avoid having it pass, since many Hoosier Democrats would overwhelmingly vote for it, as they did last time when it was put to a floor vote).

Now, however, House Republicans have exercised the “nuclear option” to go around The Hair and the committee where he consigned the marriage amendment to die.

By offering the marriage amendment as an amendment to a bill, in this case property tax reform, they will circumvent the committee graveyard and force the House to go on the record on the marriage amendment (and likely pass it).

Questions have been raised at Masson’s Blog about whether such a move is germane, or relevant to the measure to which it is being attached.

The chair–the speaker–would make that determination (effectively forcing The Hair to go on record about it).

Moreover, the moment that the Speaker renders a determination that the amendment is not germane, that ruling can be appealed by a floor vote of the House.

It is my understanding that this would not be a voice vote and “selective hearing” would have nothing to do with its outcome.

In April of 2003, for example (and I don’t have a citation yet; will hunt a few up later), the chair made a ruling about the germane-ness of an amendment, and was overruled by a vote of the House.

It seems unlikely to me that selective hearing would have allowed that to transpire; it seems clear that a recorded vote will be necessary.

A recorded vote will force the House Democrats, many of whom either support the marriage amendment or are afraid to oppose it, to go on the record of how they stand about it.

Even if they succeed in preventing it from being attached (something which I view to be unlikely; I think it will be attached and it will be passed), they will have gone on the record about it (and will give fuel to Eric Miller & Company for the general election).

House Republicans aren’t giving up on their attempt to pass a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Contrary to some statements made by opponents of the amendment, the measure is not some new type of discrimination.  Indiana law currently prohibits same-sex unions and a Constitutional amendment is needed simply to prevent judges from writing their personal philisophical beliefs into law.  Further, discrimination isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, our laws constantly discriminate between individuals who follow the law and individuals who break the law. 

But back to the news item.  Assistant House Minority Leader Eric Turner yesterday submitted an amendment to HJR-1, the proposed Constitutional Amendment capping property taxes, inserting the language of SJR 7 into the legislation.

Good job Leader Bosma, Assistant Leader Turner, and House Republican caucus on working hard to pass this needed legislation.

For those of you still unconvinced that Indiana should pass a Constitutional amendment even if we don’t have a case dealing with same-sex marriage sitting the docket, I would suggest that you read this article.  Iowa isn’t a bastion of liberalism.

The Washington, D.C. based Family Research Council had an item in yesterday’s daily e-mail update about the status of marriage accross the states and Indiana’s efforts to pass SJR 7 were mentioned.

In places like Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, and Florida, the President’s annual State of the Union address is taking a backseat to what many see as the troubling state of their own unions. Pro-family Hoosiers, who recently celebrated the legislature’s decision to vote their marriage protection amendment out of committee, are facing a do-or-die battle to get the initiative on the November ballot. If House Speaker Pat Bauer (D) sabotages the bill, as he has promised to do, voters will have to wait four to six years for another shot at protecting marriage. If Bauer, who is an award-winning opponent of traditional marriage (so honored by the ACLU), bars citizens from defining marriage, it will only be a matter of time before Indiana’s courts do so for them. In the Sunshine State, where residents are consumed by the presidential primaries, another race hangs in the balance–the race against time for traditional marriage proponents. Florida4Marriage has been scrambling to gather thousands of new signatures to place a marriage protection amendment on this November’s ballot. As a result, left-wing groups are out in full force, countering the petition drive with the same scare tactics that defeated the Arizona marriage amendment. Preying on the fears of the elderly, liberals are wrongly arguing that the amendment would threaten their well being. It would not, but homosexuals aren’t letting a little thing like the truth get in the way of an effective campaign. Elsewhere, Iowans are so outraged at the activism of a lower court in striking down the ban on gay marriage that they have petitioned the legislature to impeach the judge responsible for last year’s ruling. At a January 16 rally, protestors demanded that their leaders take up a marriage protection amendment before the case goes to the Iowa Supreme Court. Although Governor Chet Culver (D) pledged to “stop gay marriage from coming to [his] state,” he has yet to do a single thing to prevent it. On the contrary, he’s publicly refused to push any legislation until the high court rules. In the brief time since Maryland’s General Assembly has convened, proponents of same-sex “marriage” have already canvassed the State House, lobbying members to introduce bills that would overturn the existing ban on homosexual marriage. Reports indicate that a handful of those bills are making their debut in the legislature today. Time is of the essence! If you live in these states or have friends who do, we urge you to make your voices heard. On the future of marriage, it could make all the difference!

You can find the contact information for The Hair The Speaker here.