« Ind. Courts - Three St. Joe County judges write on legislative proposal to make changes in county judiciary | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 3 NFP) »

Friday, February 09, 2007

Ind. Law - Yet another paper editorializes against SJR 7

Joining the Indianapolis Star (see the end of this ILB entry from Feb. 1) and the Evansville Courier & Press (see here) in speaking out against SJR 7, the South Bend Tribune editorializes today:

The Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to advance a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in the state. Committee members would have served their constituents better by addressing serious concerns about the proposal. They should have considered, too, the consequences of a similar constitutional mandate in neighboring Michigan.

Indiana Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, tried during the Jan. 31 hearing (as he also had in 2005 when the Senate first voted for the amendment) to get some tough questions answered. Broden's worries were waved off and Senate Joint Resolution 7 in support of the proposed amendment passed along party lines.

In Michigan, the state Constitution's gay marriage ban has been hurtful, unnecessary and divisive. Last week, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a 2005 decision by an Ingham County Circuit Court judge by concluding that the amendment prohibits public employers -- which include school districts and state universities -- from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose. That is, the Constitution bans them from providing health insurance to same-sex domestic partners. The decision is expected to be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Indiana state government now extends employment benefits to same-sex couples by executive order, as it has through the administrations of several governors. State universities do likewise. Broden expressed worries that the amendment will tie the hands of future General Assemblies by not allowing them to adopt legislation regarding civil unions, and that it will interfere with domestic partner benefits. Broden's concern two years ago -- that the language is vague and potentially fraught with undesired consequences -- has yet to be sufficiently addressed.

One could argue that the answer is to amend the amendment in order to eliminate the vagueness. A better answer is to vote down the SJR7. It isn't needed. State law already bans same-sex marriage and has been affirmed by the state Court of Appeals.

Legislators should be very reluctant to carve new legislative and policy restrictions into the Indiana Constitution, where they will remain forever, regardless of their consequences.

The Tribune also has this story today by Jondi Schmitt on the second reading debate yesterday on SJR 1. Some quotes:
Debate grew passionate and "personal" Thursday when the Indiana Senate discussed a proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution to define marriage as between one woman and one man.

Sen. Anita Bowser, D-Michigan City, said the amendment is in direct violation of the State Constitution, calling attention to the Privileges and Amenities Clause.

"It says, in effect, the General Assembly will not lend any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or amenities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens," she said. "This is a very precious clause in our state constitution and it hurts me greatly to see it just likely ignored."

Bowser said the amendment was a "piece of trash."

"Who next is going to be on your hatred list?" she asked. "Hispanics? Immigrants? Because there is a waning of this particular issue throughout the United States when people realize how ridiculous it is." * * *

During its committee hearing last week, Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, tried to amend the resolution to exclude subsection B, which some Democrats say is too broad and is too open to interpretation. * * *

Lanane's amendment was defeated in committee, but that was not the end of it.

Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, proposed the amendment on the Senate Floor. He asked the Senate to strike subsection B from the amendment before passing it on to the House.

"I strongly fear, and many others who are respected legal scholars would concur, that Subsection B would do more than just ban gay marriage," Broden said. "It would actually ban public universities, and public actors paying domestic partnership benefits from offering that benefit to both heterosexual and same-sex partners. It would also have a significant impact on our present domestic violence laws, which are some of the most respected laws in the nation."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 9, 2007 10:22 AM
Posted to Indiana Law