Saturday, January 25, 2014
Ind. Gov't. - Reports of two House Republicans who cannot vote for HJR 3 as written
Updating the ILB post headed "Rep. McNamara wants 'second sentence' stripped out of marriage amendment: Isn't satisfied with companion legislation", the ILB now has access to the Jan. 24th story by Chelsea Schneider, statehouse reporter for the Evansville Courier Journal. Some quotes:
State Rep. Wendy McNamara wants a ban on civil unions stripped out of a measure intended to amend Indiana’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage in the state.And from very late Friday, a story from WFLI 18, West Lafayette, reported by Dan Klein:
The Mount Vernon Republican, who has previously declined to publicly share her position on the issue, said Thursday through her press secretary that while she supports the first sentence of the amendment – which defines marriage as between one man and one woman – she can’t support its second sentence, which also restricts civil unions or any other legal recognition identical or substantially similar to marriage.
McNamara said she hoped a follow-up bill Republicans are pushing to ease concerns about what that restriction would mean would remedy her worries – but that she isn’t satisfied with it.
“It did not remediate those concerns. If an amendment were to be brought up to remove the second sentence I will fully support this resolution. If the second sentence remains, I will not support the resolution,” McNamara said in a prepared statement.
McNamara had been regarded as a critical swing vote when the legislation, known as House Joint Resolution 3, was in the House Judiciary Committee, which recessed last week after three hours of public testimony without voting on the measure.
WEST LAFAYETTE (WLFI) – Next week, the Indiana House of Representatives is set to take up debate on House Joint Resolution 3, the proposed marriage amendment that could lead to a permanent ban on gay marriage. When discussion begins, at least one area Republican representative says, he has changed his mind.
Randy Truitt (R) voted for the proposal in 2011, but told News 18 Friday that his position has evolved and that he cannot support the current wording. He adds he can’t support the second sentence of HJR-3 which would not recognize civil unions and other similar partnerships.
He also doesn’t think it should need a companion bill to explain the intent.
“For me, being a believer and strong supporter in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, the second sentence ended up being something that I felt was something that I would not want in the Constitution. Even though I’m not the one that was voting on whether it was going in the Constitution, I believe this is something that needs to be very clear, very clean, very crisp and no room for interpretation,” said Truitt.
Truitt said for every voter who told him they were in favor of the amendment, there were two who told him they were against it.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 25, 2014 03:41 PM
Posted to Indiana Government