« Environment - "Supreme Court's Murky Clean Water Act Ruling Created Legal Quagmire" [Updated] | Main | Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues one opinion today »

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Ind. Law - Yesterday was "social issues" day in the General Assembly [Updated]

Or so it seemed.

First up was HJR 6, a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. As Jim Shella of WISH TV reported when the committee meeting adjourned:

A committee in the Indiana House just voted 8-to-4 in favor of the latest version of a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. The vote was along party lines with Republicans in favor of the ban.

The proposal has passed the state Senate 5 times but has never gone to a statewide referendum because House Democrats were able to derail it. That doesn’t appear likely now with Republicans in control.

The measure must pass 2 separately elected General Assemblies and then go to a vote of the people in order to change the constitution.

The Muncie Star-Press editorialized against HJR 6 this morning. Some quotes:
A GOP-ruled Indiana House committee voted 8-4 along party lines Monday to advance the proposal, which now moves to the full House for consideration. [ILB - here is the Roll Call]

The amendment states that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid in Indiana, and prohibits civil unions by stating that a legal status "substantially similar" to marriage for unmarried people is not valid.

Lawmakers would argue they are taking a proactive approach in case the current law faces a legal challenge and is overturned in the courts. A better description might be to call it a waste of time. That would be the description Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, would use, especially with lawmakers dealing with big economic issues such as a state budget and a bankrupt unemployment benefit program.

That alone would be argument enough to shelve this measure. Indiana's current law banning gay marriage has been on the books for a number of years.

Nationally known conservative Indiana attorney Jim Bopp spearheaded the testimony in favor of the amendment, asserting that gay couples could still contract re insurance, hospital access, etc. Rep. DeLaney asked at what point would a contract protecting a gay couple's rights cross the line into creating "a legal status substantially similar to marriage," thereby also violating the proposed constitutional prohibition. Re assertions that the constitutional language was necessary to protect against our Supreme Court throwing out our existing Defense of Marriage law, DeLaney asked, without success, for the names of the feared "liberal" Indiana justices.

Niki Kelly reports today in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette on yesterday's Senate committee hearing on abortion restrictions. The story begins:

State lawmakers considered Monday whether to establish a state law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges in the county where they perform the procedure or in an adjacent county.

The Senate Health and Provider Services Committee also took testimony regarding an expanded informed consent law for abortion.

The panel combined Senate Bill 457 into Senate Bill 328 and made significant additional amendments but did not take a final vote on the legislation. That could come later this week.

[More] See also this story by Heather Gillers in this morning's Indianapolis Star, headlined "Gay-marriage ban clears House panel: With GOP in control, legislators more likely to pass constitutional resolution."

[Updated 2/9/11] Here is Heather Gillers' Feb. 8th Indy Star coverage of the hearing on HJR 6. A quote:

At Monday's hearing, anti-gay-marriage activists urged lawmakers to move Turner's resolution forward so that Hoosiers can vote.

"This has important effects in protecting the . . . foundation of families and the raising of children," argued James Bopp, an attorney for social conservative causes, "but equally important is the right of the people to make the decision."

Attorney General Greg Zoeller submitted a letter supporting the resolution and committing to defend a constitutional ban against legal threats.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 8, 2011 10:00 AM
Posted to Indiana Law