By Deanna Martin
Associated Press Writer
February 19, 2008 2:17 PM
A majority of lawmakers in the Indiana House have signed a petition showing their support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - despite a decision by House leaders not to give the proposal a hearing this year.
Rep. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo, said Tuesday that representatives wanted to do something to show voters that they support the amendment. He said some lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, have been criticized for not doing enough to push for the proposal.
"We could demonstrate with our signatures our reaffirmation to those in our districts that we do support it," he said.
Democrats hold a 51-49 majority in the House. Most Republicans and seven Democrats signed the petition, which had 55 signatures Tuesday. Buck said more representatives could sign onto the petition later if they chose.
House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, has said the amendment is unnecessary and that lawmakers should focus on property tax relief during this short legislative session.
The proposed amendment has been assigned to the House Rules Committee, where chairman Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, has said he will not give it a hearing. Pelath notes that an Indiana law already bans same-sex marriage, and that a court ruling has upheld that law.
Rep. Eric Turner, R-Marion, said he will continue to fight for the amendment until the legislative session ends in mid-March, even if that means looking for creative ways to revive the proposal, such as suspending procedural rules.
"Things can be voted on right up to the last minute," Turner said. "I think we need to look at every opportunity."
Both supporters and opponents of the amendment have been pressuring lawmakers about the issue. Supporters say the state needs to amend the constitution to prevent activist judges from overturning state law banning gay marriage. Opponents say the amendment would write discrimination into the state constitution and that it could have unintended consequences.
Amending Indiana's constitution requires a resolution to pass consecutive, separately elected General Assemblies and then be approved in a statewide vote.
The General Assembly passed the proposal in 2005, when Republicans controlled the House, but would have to pass again this year to be on the November ballot in 2008. If the proposal fails this year, the earliest the measure could be on the ballot is 2012.
From the Indiana Democratic Party website:
Hundreds of e-mails. Petitions with thousands of signatures. Phone calls. Letters. Radio ads. Statehouse rallies.
Supporters of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage continue to press the issue, despite a key lawmaker's firm stance that he will not give the proposal a hearing.
Without that hearing this year, the amendment appears dead _ good news for opponents. But they, too, are pouring on the pressure, hoping to offset efforts by supporters.
At the center of the storm of e-mails and petitions stands Rep. Scott Pelath, a Democrat from Michigan City who chairs the House Rules Committee. Pelath hasn't budged from his position, saying the
amendment is unnecessary since Indiana law already bans gay marriage.
"
You only amend the constitution when you absolutely have to," Pelath said. "We already have a law that's been upheld in court, and there's just no reason to do it."
House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, agrees. He has said repeatedly that he does not know of any gay marriages in the state and that lawmakers should instead focus on property tax relief this session.
Conservative groups say it is crucial for the amendment to get a hearing this year because if it passes it could be on the November 2008 ballot. If it doesn't, the years-long process of amending the constitution would start over, and the earliest it could pass would be 2012.
The proposal's sponsor, Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, said he's not sure if he'll push the
resolution next year if it fails now.
"Obviously I feel strongly about the issue, but I'd have to give serious consideration whether to bring the issue up again if it has little future in the House of Representatives," he said.
Conservative activist Eric Miller is urging members of his Advance America group to contact their representatives and ask for a vote before the legislative session ends in mid-March.
"A delay by Speaker Bauer this year results in a four-year delay for Hoosier families, and that's not right," Miller said.
The American Family Association of Indiana, meanwhile, delivered a petition with nearly 8,000 signatures urging leaders to give the matter a hearing and vote. The organization's political action committee paid more than $4,000 for radio ads called "Confused Children" running in several
areas represented by members of the House Rules Committee.
"If my dad married a man, who would be my mom?" a child asks in the ad, which urges people
to call their representatives.
"Regardless of what a legislator thinks about the issue, this is about the people's vote," said Micah Clark, the association's director. "I think Representative Pelath needs to step aside."
Both Clark and Miller say their groups will remind voters of lawmakers' stances come election time.
Amendment opponents worry that all the pressure from supporters might eventually get to House leaders.
"We still want to stay vigilant," said Brandon Monson, communications chair with the gay rights
organization Indiana Equality. "We want to make sure we do everything we can."
The group's Web sites allows people to e-mail thanks to Pelath for his "courage and leadership" on the issue. On Monday, more than 200 people gathered for an Indiana Equality rally at the Statehouse.
Susan Hazer, of Indianapolis, said the proposed amendment would write discrimination into the
state constitution.
She noted that there are still weeks left in the legislative session, and wanted to urge lawmakers not to try to revive the proposal.
"You never know what's going to happen," Hazer said. "It's really not totally dead until the legislative session ends."
Several Indiana companies, including Cummins Inc. and Eli Lilly and Co., have also spoken out against the proposal, saying it would send a message to prospective employees that Indiana is not welcoming or inclusive. Pelath also said he has heard from law professors worried about the amendment's wording.
The proposed amendment contains two parts. The first states that marriage in Indiana is the union of one man and one woman. The second includes a phrase that says state law "may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Opponents have argued that the amendment could have unintended consequences on domestic violence laws or domestic partner benefits offered at some companies and universities. But amendment supporters say court rulings in other states have helped clarify those issues.Pelath said he has received "hundreds and hundreds" of e-mails about the issue, very few from his
district. People may have thought a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was more important a few years ago, before courts upheld Indiana's law, he said, although he realizes the issue will likely come up in elections.
"We chose to do these jobs," Pelath said. "That's part of the business. I've been through this a couple of times and lived to tell about it."
*********************************
We should communicate support to Reps Bauer and especially Pelath for doing the difficult thing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment