Jon Easter at the Indy Democrat has a post about the kick off for “Freedom Indiana,” a coalition opposed to passage of HJR 6, the Constitutional Amendment that would double down on Indiana’s prohibition on marriage equality for same sex couples and would also preclude the General Assembly from conferring upon unmarried people a legal status “substantially similar” to marriage. Easter calls the coalition eclectic and notes, in particular, the participation of Megan Robertson, an insider in state Republican circles.
While I imagine the opposition to this Constitutional Amendment will be somewhat along party lines, there seems to be a fair amount of cross over. Notoriously, former Democratic speaker, Pat Bauer voted for this amendment. And now we see some business interests, probably more comfortable in the Republican Party, agitating for the right to provide benefits to its employees who are parts of same sex couples along with someone like Ms. Robertson. Conservative media personality Abdul Hakim-Shabazz has been less than thrilled with HJR 6. Opinions on same sex marriage has been noted as a generational thing with younger people more indifferent than older people who might be more likely to be opposed.
If I had to put money on it, my natural pessimism would be to say that HJR 6 passes the General Assembly this year and in a close vote, narrowly passes as a public question in November. However, there is a chance that the question forces the organization of a coalition that could not only defeat the Constitutional Amendment but provide the impetus for repeal of Indiana’s existing “defense of marriage” act.
Matt Stone says
Megan is a class act. She always responded promptly to my e-mails during the 2011 mayoral campaign even though she knew my blog was critical of the guy she was working for. I’d like to say that is standard behavior for campaign staff, but it honestly isn’t. So the folks behind Freedom Indiana picked an excellent person to organize their campaign.
I just hope this doesn’t come back to hurt Megan in the future.
Steve Smith says
Of my former students in a mixed rural/town school, many more than one might think are opposed to the discrimination against the people this amendment is aimed at. By the time it gets to the vote on it, they may well make the difference in whether it passes.
Doug says
I think this is the last chance of the amendment’s proponents for the foreseeable future. If they have to wait another two election cycles, I expect demographics will doom them.
David Z says
Doug – wouldn’t the amendment then have to start all over again (i.e. pass one GA, wait for an election, pass another GA, and then referendum)?
Demographics in Indiana – available polling information I’ve seen – is already against the proponents of this bill by a large margin anyway. So, even if they do pass it this GA, the likelihood that it passes on the general election ballot is not good.
HoosierOne says
Yes, if they don’t pass it in the exact wording, it would start all over again.
John M says
I think the key to persuading those in the middle will be to make clear that this amendment doesn’t merely apply to arrangements called “marriages,” but almost certainly bans civil unions as well. I know nothing about PR, but if I were involved with this advocacy group I might try to rebrand it as the “anti-civil union amendment” in some way more concise and memorable way.
David Z says
While an interesting argument, it’s hard to do from a political standpoint. First, common law marriages – i.e. civil unions – cannot exist in Indiana. The State does not recognize them. Secondly, the amendment that – presumably by all new reports – will be debated in the next legislative session is commonly referred to as the gay marriage ban amendment.
The catchiest of phrases – if that’s even a word – has been “Nix 6” referring to the amendment’s bill number. This seems to have resonated with grassroots supports as a rallying cry and I expect will soon take over as the spearhead phrase of the campaign.
Joe says
My personal opinion is that the solution is to remove marriage from the state laws and replace it with civil unions. Is there a state law against anything similar to a civil union?
John M says
That’s not what I mean by “civil union.” Civil union, as used in the gay marriage debate, generally refers to a statutory arrangement for same-sex couples that is similar to a marriage but isn’t called “marriage.” A common law marriage is an arrangement that exists in some states (but not Indiana, as you note) where a man and woman live as husband as wife for a certain period of time such that the law recognizes them as being married.
The portion of the amendment that says: “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized” is quite plainly attempting to outlaw civil unions or any other legal arrangement for gay couples even if it is called something other than marriage. Given the polling data that shows that gay civil unions are more popular than gay marriage, it’s important for Indiana voters to understand that this amendment would prohibit both.
David Z says
Yes, there are simple differences between common law and civil union marriages. However, they are only in how they begin. Common law usually means you’ve lived with someone for a significant period of time and just start claiming you’re married. Civil unions are akin to being married by the justice of the peace. However, the benefits of those two relationships are practically identical. I would put money on it that if civil unions were allowed, there’d be some legal challenges based upon the outlaw of common law marriages and the already in place statutory ban on gay marriage. As some proponents against the amendment have noted, there are already statutes that forbid LGBT folks from entering into a legally recognized relationship in this state, why do we need an amendment (for clarity, I also think the statute is crap…)?
John M says
I guess I’m not sure what you are arguing. Are you saying that if Indiana a) kept its anti gay marriage statute on the books; b) failed to pass the constitutional amendment; and c) passed a law allowing same sex couples to enter into a marriage-like arrangement called a civil union, then there would be a challenge from opposite sex couples who want a civil union but not a marriage? Interesting, but it strikes me as a tough sell considering that both gays and straights would have a particular mechanism for legally formalizing their relationships. Of course, Mike Pence is our governor and there is a Republican supermajority in both houses of the General Assembly, so worrying about the implications of a civil unions statute is academic.
Carlito Brigante says
It is not completely correct to say that common law marriages do not exist in Indiana. Common law marriages that were in effect in Indiana before like about 1958 are still valid. Indiana oulawed them prospectively back then, like many states did.
Not sure there would be too many left
John M says
Fair enough. I didn’t know that.
Dina Roberts Wakulchik says
Doug, this is a great post that summarizes the beginning of this grass-roots movement very well. I tend to be pessimistic on anything happening in Indiana’s Republican-dominated general assembly. As for HJR-6, however, I hope we’re both really wrong.
Don Sherfick says
Doug, as you know well, I’ve pointed out a number of times that the current version is vastly different from a prior version, which would not have kept the legislature from enacting civil unions or any other relationship recognition short of marriage itself. The measure was said to reign in “an unelected activist judiciary” only. The sponsors termed the current language, which muzzles all three branches, excessive and motivated by antigay feelings. But calls for an explanation of why the major change of heart seem to fall on deaf ears.
As to David Z’s comment above, I would disagree that civil unions are akin to common law marriage. The latter is simply a recognition of a union that wasn’t formed pursuant to the marriage law. If the legislature (barring the ratification of HJR-6) were to enact a formal civil union procedure, the ban on common low marriage would remain unaffected.
HoosierOne says
Actually it’s the “Marriage Discrimination Amendment” as far as I am concerned, and I will continue to refer to it that way. It’s an affront to equal protection in Indiana when you place such crap in our Bill of Rights,which is where it is slated to go. In less than a decade, it will be ruled unconstitutional and we’ll be seen as the “last state to enshrine this discrimination” in our sacred document.
Kevin F says
Dina,
This is definately not the “beginning” of the grass roots movement against this amendment, by any stretch of the imagination. Some of us have been working (successfully) at keeping this at bay for the last 10 years. Thats why Indiana is getting so much attention. We’re one of the last few states that has nothing on the books (per se) one way or the other about gay marriage. The majority of Hoosiers are finally waking up to this issue and its getting noticed more than ever before. Thats why it seems like the beginning.
Doug says
Not sure how you mean that Indiana has nothing on the books. There is IC 31-11-1-1 which says:
Don Sherfick says
Paragraph (b) is of note because with respect to virtually everything else, Indiana recognizes marriages from other states even though those marriages couldn’t be legally performed here. This major exception for same sex marriages is borne out of dislike a a disfavored group, and although the recent SCOTUS decision striking down part of DOMA dealt only with federal issues, the language about how disfavored groups can’t be singled out for unequal treatment would seem to apply to unequal treatment of out-of-state marriages.
Joe says
The solution to the problem is getting government out of people’s lives. The government should get out of the marriage business.
Carlito Brigante says
The incidents of marriage are too central to society for government to “Get out.” Marriage and family are, along with criminal law and other regulatory police powers, central to the regulation and function of society.
Joe says
You can have the “incidents of marriage” without it being called marriage. You could even call it a civil union document. It would replace the current marriage license which needs someone else to perform a marriage.
All the government should be able to do is issue “civil union” documents to any two people. That should be the end of it, and that’s what the laws of the land should reference.
The act of “marriage” should be a religious institution and should not be referenced in laws.
If you want to be “married” in the eyes of the government but don’t care to get married by a church, get a civil union document.
If you want to be “married” in the eyes of a church and are OK with the government treating you as single people, get married in the church of your choice and skip the document.
If you want the government and your church to consider you a couple, get both.
Carlito Brigante says
Joe, your method would work. And likely makes sense. But good luck getting it enacted. If the prospect of gay marriage hits a nerve, can you imagine what “Outlawing marriage” (a political attack phrases that might be used) would do?
steelydanfan says
Did you know that before Barack HUSSEIN Nobama became not-my-President, it was LEGAL to get a heterosexual marriage in the United States?
It’s true! You can look it up if you want–before January 20, 2009, there were NO LAWS in the United States banning heterosexual marriage!
Educate yourself!
Mary Strinka says
I believe this is similar to marriage law in France. We can’t have none of that scary Yurpeean stuff hear in the heartland.
Doug says
Any reason churches rather than government should get the word “marriage”? It varies, but I think in a lot of times and places, civil society was making use of the concept before religious institutions were. (The notion would have been largely conjoined when the U.S. was founded.)
Joe says
To Carlito’s point of “good luck getting this enacted”, it’s giving one thing up (the name) to get another (the rights).
Are gay couples getting married because of what it’s called or because of the legal rights that come with it?
Doug says
I think it has more to do with being equal citizens. As equal citizens, they figure they ought to enjoy the rights and privileges made available to their fellow citizens.
Joe says
Agreed, hence my perspective that churches should “get” the word.