15 YEARS AFTER LANDMARK RULING IN FAVOR OF GAY STRAIGHT ALLIANCES, SCHOOL DISTRICTS CONTINUE TO DENY THEM

Fifteen years after a landmark federal court ruling upholding the right of students to form Gay Straight Alliance clubs at public schools, some districts continue to violate the law by refusing to recognize GSAs.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a school district in Bainbridge, Indiana — 35 miles west of Indianapolis — on behalf of three students and the GSA at North Putnam High School.

The students formed the GSA at North Putnam more than a year ago, but after months of stalling, the school board voted Nov. 20 not to recognize the club.

The ACLU alleges the district's failure to recognize the GSA violates both the federal Equal Access Act and the students' First Amendment rights:

LGBT students at the school have frequently been harassed and wanted to form the GSA to provide a place to educate the community and support vulnerable students. The school, which allows other non-school-sponsored clubs and activities to meet, such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Key Club and Best Buddies, has denied recognition of the GSA club for more than a year. The students followed all the school's required procedures outlined in its student handbook to establish the club, including securing a faculty member to supervise the group. ... 

"The law is clear in this matter," said Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana legal director. "There is no excuse for the school district's intransigence, which is causing real harm to its students." 

The ACLU of Indiana was successful in reversing a similar decision by a school in the Town of Munster in July, 2014. 

"The actions of the school district in clear violation of federal law leave the most vulnerable students at North Putnam without critically needed support," Chase Strangio, Staff Attorney at the ACLU added.

In November 1999, a federal judge ruled that the Salt Lake City school district's decision to reject a GSA at East High School violated the federal Equal Access Act. The Salt Lake district said it was banning all non-curricular clubs to get around the Equal Access Act, but continued to allow other clubs to meet. 

From Lambda Legal, which served as lead counsel in the Salt Lake City lawsuit: 

This case more than any other put the issue of GSAs on the nation's radar, letting students know they could fight back and letting school districts know they might be in violation of the law.

Apparently, some districts still haven't gotten the message.

Indiana Plans To Cut Tens Of Thousands Off Food Stamps

Indiana will cut tens of thousands of its poorest people off of the food stamps roles beginning next spring, the state announced. Gov. Mike Pence (R) has decided to join seven other states in reinstating work requirements for food stamps despite being eligible for a federal waiver from those rules for the coming fiscal year.

Federal rules require able-bodied, childless people who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for more than three months a year to demonstrate that they are working or attending a job training program for at least 20 hours a week. But those rules can be waived during times of high economic strain when the work requirements cannot reasonably be fulfilled. Nearly every state requested and received such a waiver during the Great Recession. But a growing number of states have begun reinstating the work rules even though the Department of Agriculture has said their unemployment rates are still high enough to justify waiving the rules.

The state estimates that 65,000 people will be affected by Pence’s change, according to the Indianapolis Star. Previous similar moves in Kansas, New Mexico, Maine, and other states have left tens of thousands of people without access to food stamps. The network of food charities that picks up the slack when hungry people are underserved by government programs is already overstretched around the country, according to the people who run those charities.

There is ample evidence that tying anti-poverty aid to work requirements renders the programs ineffective exactly when they are most needed. When the economy tightens and work becomes scarce, more people find themselves in need of safety net programs. Work requirements deprive those programs of the flexibility they need to function, and in recessions they fail to keep up with spikes in demand, leaving needy families in the lurch. The welfare reforms of the 1990s were praised by both political parties for years, but they have eroded the country’s system for helping impoverished families to the point where a record 74 percent of poor families with children did not receive federal aid from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program in 2010.

Most of the states that have retreated prematurely from food stamps waivers — Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, and Maine — have Republican governors. (Delaware Gov. Jack Markell (D) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) have also declined statewide waivers despite being eligible.)

Pence’s rationale for the move is that it will help push people who would otherwise collect benefits without trying to work. The administration official in charge of the relevant state agency explained Indiana’s decision in a letter to the Department of Agriculture as “an opportunity to help improve the skills of our fellow Hoosiers and advance their prospects for meaningful employment, while at the same time establishing a pool of better-prepared candidates for the Indiana workforce.” Gov. Sam Brownback (R) used a similar argument to justify ending waivers in Kansas last year when the state was still eligible.

But making it harder to fill the fridge doesn’t make it easier to find a job. There are currently two job-seekers for every job opening nationwide. Those are steep odds for people making good-faith efforts to find work, but the two-to-one ratio is also a dramatic improvement from recent years when the ratio was up around five-to-one.

The same conservative mentality toward the unemployed recently lead North Carolina to slash its unemployment insurance system so deeply that it now no longer qualifies as a valid jobless aid system under federal rules. Gov. Pat McRory (R) has claimed that the move helped the state’s economy. But the reality is that the state’s unemployment statistics improved because tens of thousands of people who had been looking for work prior to the cuts simply gave up and stopped being counted. Before the cuts, the employment rate for people between 25 and 54 years old had been rising steadily in North Carolina. It has begun a “pronounced” decline since, analysts at the Economic Policy Institute have found. (In addition to liberal think tanks, conservative economic pundit Jim Pethokoukis at the American Enterprise Institute has criticized McRory’s moveand the Republican rhetoric about it.)

Indiana’s similar maneuver with food assistance funds is likely to produce a similar failure to achieve the Pence administration’s stated goals. The most recent statistics on the job market in the midwest shows that there are nearly two million unemployed people hunting for just over a million jobs across the region, to say nothing of the tens of thousands who have given up their formal job searching and are no longer counted as unemployed.

Still, Pence’s policy compares favorably with what his neighbor Gov. John Kasich (R) is doing in Ohio. Kasich retained the SNAP work waivers for 16 of the state’s 88 counties but reinstated work rules in the counties that house the majority of the state’s minority population. Food stamps recipients in the counties that continue to enjoy waivers are 94 percent white, according to a coalition of groups that filed a civil rights complaint against Kasich in August.

In one Ohio county that lost its waiver, the Star reports, more than 2,500 people lost food stamp benefits. A third of them had physical or mental health issues that make it hard for them to work, an Ohio food charity official told the newspaper.

7th Circuit Hears Challenges To Same-Sex Marriage Bans in Indiana and Wisconsin

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals this week heard oral arguments in two cases that challenged the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, respectively. As the AP reports, the three judge panel composed of Judges Richard Posner, Anne Claire Williams and David Hamilton, were critical of arguments that sought to justify the bans. Judge Posner, the sole Republican appointed judge among the three member panel, was perhaps the most critical of the states defending their anti-equality laws, objecting in particular to arguments that relied on "tradition":

"It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away," Posner said. Prohibition of same sex marriage, he said, is "a tradition of hate ... and savage discrimination." 

Posner frequently cut off Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fischer, just moments into his presentation and chided him to answer his questions. 

At one point, Posner ran through a list of psychological strains of unmarried same-sex couples, including having to struggle to grasp why their schoolmates' parents were married and theirs weren't. 

"What horrible stuff," Posner said. What benefits to society in barring gay marriage, he asked, "outweighs that kind of damage to children?" 

There was [also] some levity during the hearing. As Samuelson struggled to offer a specific reason for how gay marriage bans benefit society, he suddenly noted a yellow courtroom light signaling his allotted time was up. 

"It won't save you," [Judge Ann Claire] Williams told him, prompting laughter in court.

Samuleson smiled, and said: "it was worth a try.”

The last anecdote indicates somewhat dramatically just how much the court may be inclined to disagree with the state’s arguments and find for the plaintiffs.

Indiana’s Antigay Governor Gets in Trouble Over Marriage Memo

Indiana Governor Mike Pence just got yelled at by a federal judge, and gee whiz it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

You might remember this creep from his attempt to force military gays to stay in the closet; or his bill to imprison (yes, really) any gay and lesbian couple that tries to get married; or his failed campaign to add marriage discrimination into the state constitution. In other words, he’s simply an awful, terrible, loathsome, miserable, rotten man.

Well, guess, what: can add “lying” to that list of adjectives. Earlier this year, Pence tried to get himself removed from a lawsuit over marriage, claiming that the Governor’s office doesn’t really do marriage stuff. A judge believed him, and removed Pence from the case. But then the Governor turned around and started issuing memos to state officials, ordering them to stop gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

The judge did not care for that one bit, and in a new ruling he’s called Pence’s claims a “bold misrepresentation” and “troubling.”

It’s always nice to see a jerk get caught by authority. But this timing is particularly pleasant, since it will likely throw the Governor’s office into a panic with just a few days before a major court case that he probably didn’t want to have anything to do with.

On August 26 (as in, last Tuesday), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a couple of Indiana cases (and also Wisconsin). Pence was no doubt looking forward to sitting back and avoiding the oral argument. But now, he’s been yanked back in.

It’s unclear whether Pence will be required to send lawyers to court on Tuesday. It doesn’t appear as though he’s a defendant anymore, but Judge Richard L. Young’s ruling seems to indicate that he’ll consider adding Pence back on to the case. Any any event, it’s certainly not the situation the governor wanted. What a shame.

Poor Mike Pence

Poor Republican Indiana Governor Mike Pence. What is a professional homophobe to do when a judge rules same-sex marriage legal in his state, and the older half of his disgusting garbage base wants him to do everything he can to fight this bit of equality, but the younger half of his base supports that bit of equality, and he's definitely on the losing side of history but totally wants to run for president? It's quite a conundrum!

Mike Pence is in a tough spot. The Republican governor of Indiana and potential presidential contender must now decide whether to recognize gay marriages in his state. His decision, and the response to it, could be an early sign of how the GOP might try to finesse an awkward issue as 2016 approaches. 

...The political peril is clear. If Pence chooses to recognize same-sex marriages, he risks alienating the socially conservative Republican base and hurting his chances in the 2016 presidential primary, should he run. But an image as a culture warrior could cause big problems for Pence down the road.

Oh dear! What to do, what to do.

In case I'm not laying on the sarcasm thick enough, I don't give a hot fuck that my shitty governor is stuck between decency and pandering to his contemptible base, and I sure as hell don't care that it might impede his presidential ambitions, because I wouldn't wish this guy on the nation.

I do, however, care quite a bit that the framing of this story (by the great liberal devil MSNBC) is thatMike Pence is in "a tough spot." 

You know who's actually in a tough spot? The same-sex Hoosier couples who got married before the stay and now don't know the legal status of their own marriage. And the couples who didn't rush to get married before the stay and now can't legally get married, until it's resolved.

They're in a tough spot.

Their governor is not in a tough spot, so much as he is making a calculated choice to try to thread a needle in service to his own ambitions, with absolutely no regard for the people of his state whose basic equality he will happily deny if it proves to be the most politically expedient option.

That's not being in a tough spot. That's being an unprincipled opportunist who is being minorly inconvenienced by having to wait to see which way the wind is blowing.

Court Orders Indiana to Recognize 1 Gay Marriage

At least one same-sex couple in Indiana will have their marriage recognized by the state following a federal court decision Tuesday.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ordered Indiana to acknowledge the marriage of a lesbian couple, one of whom is terminally ill, on an emergency basis.

The emergency ruling came just days after the court stayed a federal judge’s order setting aside Indiana’s prohibition of gay marriage as unconstitutional.

Lawyers from Lambda Legal had asked the appeals court for the continued recognition of the marriage of Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, who is fighting advanced ovarian cancer.

"It is time for the State of Indiana to leave Niki and Amy in peace and not subject them and their marriage to any more stress and uncertainty as this case proceeds. We’re thrilled that the court ruled in favor of this family as Niki battles stage 4 ovarian cancer," said Paul D. Castillo, attorney for the national gay rights group Lambda Legal, who represented the couple.

The three-line order contained no legal arguments or reasoning, but simply ordered Indiana to recognize the validity of couple’s marriage "on an emergency basis."

The women, who were legally married in Massachusetts last year, filed a lawsuit seeking to force Indiana to recognize their marriage. They were granted emergency recognition in May while their case proceeded, in part so Sandler’s name could appear on Quasney’s death certificate as her spouse. The couple fears Sandler’s ability to collect Social Security and other death benefits would be harmed if their marriage isn’t recognized.

The appeals court did not rule on the overall issue of the constitutionality of Indiana’s gay marriage ban, which went back into effect Friday when the 7th Circuit stayed Judge Richard Young’s ruling that struck down the Indiana prohibition. Young’s ruling Wednesday sent hundreds of same-sex couples to clerks’ offices across the state to get marriage licenses and be wed, but the status of those unions isn’t clear.

The Indiana attorney general’s office had invited the court to grant a hardship exception for Quasney and Sandler if it could find a legal way to do so. State attorneys said they had been unable to find one.

Staci Schneider, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said Tuesday that the office respects the court’s ruling but declined further comment.

"We hope the court will look at this marriage, as well as the hundreds of couples legally married last week across the state, and understand that to deny the freedom to marry is to inhibit equal protection of loving Hoosier families under Indiana law," Hoosiers Unite for Marriage said in a statement. "It cannot stand, and we will fight both the legal battle and to make sure Hoosiers understand why marriage matters and why these couples deserve protection."

Ind. clerk denies marriage licenses to gay couples because of ‘biblical beliefs’

A southwestern Indiana county clerk says she won’t issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her biblical beliefs and what she calls a lack of clear direction.

WRTV

Sherri Healey

Daviess County Clerk Sherri Healey tells the Washington Times-Heraldthat at least two same-sex couples who’ve tried to get marriage licenses from her office have been turned away since U.S. District Judge Richard Young threw out Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

Healey says there’s a gray area between Young’s ruling and an advisory from the state attorney general’s office, so she’s waiting for something more precise.

She told one disgruntled license seeker that the U.S. “was founded on the biblical principle of one man and one woman in marriage.”

She says that’s what she’ll follow until she hears otherwise.

Marion County, home to Indianapolis, the state’s capital city, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately following Young’s ruling on Wednesday, and as of Friday has issued nearly 500 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But many county clerks were still awaiting guidance from the attorney general’s office on Friday on whether to proceed with issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office instructed clerks in Hamilton, Allen, Boone, Porter and Lake counties, which were named in the lawsuits challenging the ban, that they must comply with the court’s ruling or be subject to contempt of court.

Zoeller’s office said other county clerks aren’t under the direct jurisdiction of Young’s order but urged them to “show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued.”

On Wednesday, Zoeller filed a request for an emergency stay, asking Young to put his ruling on hold while the state appeals. Young has not ruled on that request.

Ind. says it has the right to pick and choose which marriages it recognizes

States have the right to decide which out-of-state licenses they choose to recognize, including marriage licenses, attorneys for Indiana argued in a brief filed with a federal appeals court.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller (R-Ind.)

The filing by the Indiana attorney general’s office Wednesday in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago was in response to U.S. District Judge Richard Young’s ruling last month ordering Indiana to recognize the marriage of Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney of Munster.

The same sex-couple was married last year in Massachusetts.

Young’s ruling applies only to Sandler and Quasney, who is terminally ill with ovarian cancer. The couple wants their marriage to be recognized on Quasney’s death certificate to make certain Sandler can obtain death benefits.

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for Indiana attorney general Greg Zoeller, said in a news release Thursday there is no federal due process right to have a license issued in one state treated as valid by government and courts in another.

He said if states were required to do so, they would have to recognize and treat as valid one another’s law licenses, medical licenses, concealed-carry gun permits and other licenses.

Young last month issued a preliminary injunction extending an earlier temporary restraining order forcing the state to list Amy Sandler as the spouse of Niki Quasney on a death certificate after Quasney dies. Young did not rule on whether Indiana’s gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. That ruling is expected to come later.

Indiana Republican: ‘No One Has the Guts’ to Let the Poor ‘Wither and Die’

A Republican in Indiana has once again proven just how much disdain the GOP has for the poor by saying one of the most disgusting things about them that I’ve ever heard.

During an online discussion about poverty, Republican John Johnston said of the poor, “no one has the guts to just let them wither and die.”

But to grasp just how much Johnston hates the poor, you really need to see his comments in their full context.

“For almost three generations people, in some cases, have been given handouts,” Johnston said. “They have been ‘enabled’ so much that their paradigm in life is simply being given the stuff of life, however meager.”

“What you see is a setting for a life of misery is life to them never-the-less,” he continued. “No one has the guts to just let them wither and die. No one who wants votes is willing to call a spade a spade. As long as the Dems can get their votes the enabling will continue. The Republicans need their votes and dare not cut the fiscal tether. It is really a political Catch-22.”

But Johnston didn’t stop there, “The voters are the ones in charge. However when only 10-11 percent show up to vote, not much will change. People simply are not hurting enough, or simply happy enough that they will do nothing. Consequently the dole continues.”

It’s the typical “people are poor because they’ve been enabled” right-wing propaganda. This fool seems unaware that millions of Americans work full-time jobs yet still rely on help from the government because they make so little due to his party continuing to oppose any hike in the minimum wage.

Are there people who abuse the system? Absolutely. But the way many Republicans perpetuate this myth that the majority of Americans living in poverty are living that way because they’re lazy is, quite frankly, pathetic.

Oh, someone might also want to inform him that there are more liberals than conservatives. Typically the higher the voter turnout, the better that is for Democrats – not Republicans.

That’s why Republicans are trying so hard to pass new voter ID laws that make it harder for people to vote. They know the lower the turnout, the better it is for the GOP.

But once again John Johnston proved just how much Republicans loathe Americans who are living in poverty.

Watch This High School Principal Have A Kid Arrested For Saying He Is ‘Disappointed’ In Him

Students at an Indiana high school were upset that their school refused to allow them to have a moment of silence for a former student who had committed suicide, so they staged a sit-in to request one.

More than 200 students gathered at around 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 2 in the Wedge and Main Street to protest the school’s refusal to allow the loss of one of their own to be recognized. Tenth Grader Natalia Kuzbel told Lake Central News, “I went not to rebel or get out of class…I went for Mike. No, I didn’t know him. [I’ve] seen him a few times, but he is one of us and to not stand up for one just like myself would be cowardly of me.”

What should have been a simple matter of the school listening to the assembled students’ voices and recognizing the person that they cared about, it turned out, was not that simple. After Principal Robin Tobias and other administrators arrived on the scene, the school called in the local police to help supervise the students–because it was absolutely necessary to handle a crowd of peaceful students standing up for what they believed…by sitting.

When Tobias entered, he was greeted with “oh’s.” Students, who only wanted the school to recognize the death of someone they felt deserved recognition, were threatened with consequences, including suspensions. One student stood up and declared, “One moment of silence…is all we are asking for from the school!”

The Principal responded, unconcerned, “OK, can we sit down now? You’re not in charge here. I am, number one. Number two: everybody get your IDs out. right now.” His lack of concern was met with an angry response from the students, who remained peacefully sitting. He demanded students’ attention, but received none until a student asked everyone to “shut up.” Tobias then told the students, “Alright I’m disappointed.”

One student bravely voiced the overall feelings of the assembled crowd: “We’re disappointed in you too,” earning raucous cheers from the crowd and greatly irritating the principal. Tobias expressed his disapproval with students having a voice by asking a police officer to remove the student who spoke up.

As an officer obediently physically removed the still-peaceful student, Tobias continued, “I understand you’re sitting here for what you think is a good cause. I think a lot of you are here because it’s a joke in your own head. I understand a lot of you think this is not a joke. I understand that,” before he was interrupted by supportive cheers as the police officer dragged the student who had the audacity to express disapproval with the school’s–and its principal’s–uncaring attitude and lack of concern for how they felt away and turned him over to cuff him.

Tobias went on to explain that, if necessary, he would have police remove the students “one by one if that’s what it took” or that students could go to the LGI room to reflect. He did not agree to recognizing their lost friend over the intercom, but did mention that a signature banner had been approved in the Guidance office.

Whether the principal was right or wrong, what sort of person refers to a young person’s death, or students standing up for something in which they believe, as a “joke?”

INDIANA GOP STATE SENATOR MIKE DELPH: 'GAYS DON'T FIGHT FAIR'

Indiana State Senator and Tea Party member Mike Delph was disappointed by the failed measure to get a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions on his state’s 2014 ballot.

The contentious amendment, known as HJR-3, died in February in a Senate vote (keeping it off the ballot until 2016 at earliest). But still hurting from the failure, Senator Delph has written a personal column entitled, “Opponents of Christian values don’t fight fair.”

His main takeaway is:

If I have learned anything over the last months in the HJR-3 debate, opponents of traditional Judeo-Christian values don’t fight fair or with honor. They fight to win, and to date have been very successful.

After that backhanded compliment, he says that because all rights regarding marriage come from God, the government cannot create or remove any new rights regarding marriage. Thus, the government should just stay out of marriages entirely and let churches regulate it like God wants:

Rights come from God and are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away by man, or more important, by government… Not even courts have the power to create or remove rights. So how can a right exist that does not come from our Creator and what modern rights do we honestly believe are divinely inspired as opposed to invented and imposed by a left-wing orthodoxy?

Probably the biggest mess of all was when the government started involving itself in marriage. Tax benefits, estate planning benefits, societal legitimacy are all things traditional marriage brings participants.

Now there is evidence that not only will businesses be sued for operating according to their own faith traditions, but churches themselves can be sued if they refuse to ordain a union their God rejects.

Keep in mind that the businesses being sued for rejecting LGBT customers ran afoul of public accomodation laws and not marriage laws like Delph says, so gay marriage has nothing to do with those cases. Furthermore, there has never been one instance ever of an LGBT person trying to force a church to marry them. Never. Ever.

Fun sidenotes though: Delph’s brother Stephen is gay and Delph got punished by his own own caucus for tweeting about HJR-3's lack of votes before the news went public.

He is also “the only US politician who accepted a donation from BP's political action committee in the period after its Deepwater Horizon spill and spoke out in favor of the company in defense of its critics.”

Indiana Senator with Gay Brother Will Make Last Ditch Attempt to Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Indiana State Senator Mike Delph (R-Carmel), who had a meltdown on social media last week after the Senate failed to reinsert language that would get the state's gay marriage ban to voters this year, held a press conference on Monday morning:

Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, said Monday that he wants to use a procedural move to try to put a ban on civil unions back into a state constitutional amendment against gay marriage—although he’s not sure the votes are there to approve it.

In a press conference in the Statehouse rotunda Monday morning, Delph said he will vote against the measure if he’s not successful in restoring the original language to the proposed amendment, which included a ban on civil unions. Without the language on civil unions, Delph said, the proposal does little if anything to legally protect traditional marriage.

“This is my preferred way to bring closure to this entire matter,” Delph said. “Done in November 2014. Once and for all.”

The Indiana Senate is preparing for a final vote on the measure. Because the House struck language that would have banned any legal relationship that is "identical or substantially similar" to marriage is restored (and then sent back to the House and reapproved this session), the Senate would have had to reinsert the language and have the House pass it again to have it sent to voters this year. They chose not to do so in a first vote last week.

Indiana Senate Prevents Voters from Considering Gay Marriage Ban Until at Least 2016

The Indiana Senate today offered no amendments to HJR3, the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and thus the language struck by the House earlier this month was not reinserted, meaning the measure must begin its process from the beginning and will not reach voters until at least 2016.

Because the House struck language that would have banned any legal relationship that is "identical or substantially similar" to marriage is restored (and then sent back to the House and reapproved this session), the Senate would have had to reinsert the language and have the House pass it again to have it sent to voters this year. They chose not to do so.

A constitutional amendment needs to pass two separately-elected General Assemblies and then be approved by a voter majority in a public referendum before becoming part of the constitution.

Indiana House Deals Blow to Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment by Striking Sentence Forbidding Similar Unions

The Indiana House voted 52-43 to approve an amendment striking the second sentence of HJR 3, the amendment to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.

The second sentence prohibited any legal relationship that is "identical or substantially similar" to marriage.

Freedom Indiana tweets that "With the removal of the 2nd sentence, #HJR3 will likely NOT go to the ballot in November. This is a huge win for freedom & liberty!"

NUVO reported yesterday:

An amendment to HJR 3 means the constitutional amendment process would likely restart. That could postpone a possible ratification by voters from this fall to 2016.

The Indy Star adds:

If the General Assembly approves the measure as amended, civil unions would not be explicitly banned and the proposed constitutional amendment would not go to voters this November.

Rep. Randy Truitt, a West Lafayette Republican, proposed the amendment. He got support from Democrats and some GOP members, including some who voted in favor of the amendment in 2011.

So, from the way things look, this may send the whole measure back to the starting line.

Developing...

Gay Indiana Candidate Leaves the Republican Party Over GOP Drive for Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Andy Markle, a gay Republican running for state representative in Indianapolis, announced he is leaving the Republican Party on Tuesday in response by the Indiana House Speaker's power play on marriage equality which advanced the gay marriage ban to the full Indiana House.

Wrote Markle on Facebook Tuesday:

Today is a day that will never be forgotten in the hearts of many Hoosiers, including my own. For the past few years, we have seen political posturing occur over a divisive amendment that has been the subject of great scrutiny by constitutional lawyers, economists, business persons and even politicians. We have seen a state divide over an issue that should have never been an issue. We have seen a state full of hospitality become a breeding ground for inequality and a debate that does not show the true values that the Hoosier State encompasses.

It deeply saddens me to see the state that I have called home for the past 8 years plunge into a debate over a minority group's civil rights. 

It is with a heavy heart but with a clear conscience that I announce the end of my run for Indiana State House of Representatives, District 99, as a Republican. With today's announcement by House Speaker Brian Bosma, that he is using extraordinary and unprecedented rules to change House Joint Resolution 3's committee assignment, I have no choice but to resign my candidacy as a Republican. 

As an openly gay male and a conservative, I find it deplorable that the state would choose to take such extraordinary measures to disenfranchise me and my fellow LGBT brothers and sisters. In an era where my party declared that it was the party of "small government" and "less intrusion", it has been confirmed that it is not the party of small government or less intrusion. 

I am not leaving the Republican Party; the Republican Party has left me.

HJR-3, the constitutional ban on gay marriage, was moved to the Elections and Apportionment Committee by House Speaker Brian Bosma in a power play after it began to look like it might fail in the House Judiciary Committee. Bosma's unusual move turned out to be successful for the anti-gay conservatives. The bill passed 9-3 this week and now moves to the full House. The amendment would need to pass two separately-elected General Assemblies and be approved by a voter majority in a public referendum before becoming part of the constitution.

Indiana House Speaker Moves Gay Marriage Ban to Committee More Inclined to Advance It

Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma made the unusual move of directing the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage from the House Judiciary Committee to the House Elections and Apportionment Committee today even though the former has already held a hearing with hours of public testimony.

Why?

The bill is stalling in the Judiciary Committee for lack of support and the new committee is more conservative and contains at least one Democrat who says he supports a ban, the AP reports:

Bosma had promised publicly to let the ban run a normal course in the Legislature but took a more forceful role in advancing it amid concerns that it would die in committee.

Indiana Religious Right's New Anti-Marriage Video

I'm always amazed at the logical loops the religious right tie around themselves. Here's the latest pep talk video for Indiana's proposed marriage amendment and, of course, it's all about the "right to vote."

The video starts right out with a moment of derp. 

"One of the blessings of living in America is that we live in a constitutional republic. We're a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," one man says before going on to praise the "right to weigh in" on all the important issues.

He conveniently forgets that there are three branches of government set up by the document he adores. When any judge makes a ruling or lawmakers pass legislation they don't like, suddenly the constitution becomes a tool of activists and should be ignored in favor of the popular vote. They spend the entire three minutes misinterpreting the writing they worship.

Sound familiar? I guess if you're already willing to stretch your holy book to fit your own needs, it's no small step to start warping the foundation of your government.

Indiana House Panel Delays Vote on Gay Marriage Ban After Hours-Long Hearing

The Indiana House Judiciary Committee has delayed a vote on a constitutional ban on gay marriage after several hours of testimony, the AP reports: 

Chairman Greg Steuerwald delayed the vote Monday following more than three hours of testimony from supporters and opponents. He said afterward that witnesses for both sides made compelling arguments...

Steuerwald cited a need for additional time to weigh the testimonies" according to the Purdue Exponent.

No timetable was given for a vote or further testimony.

Writes the Elkhart Truth:

The panel began at 10 a.m. with Steuerwald announcing the parameters of the hearing: each side would be given one hour and 15 minutes for testimony, with some time built in. A total of 40 speakers were scheduled to speak. HJR-3 sponsor Rep. Eric Turner introduced HJR-3 and its companion bill, House Bill 1153 before opening the floor for testimony.

Supporters of the amendment said Monday that it was needed to protect against any court decisions overturning the existing state ban on gay marriage.

But opponents testified that Indiana's national and global image is suffering. Executives with Eli Lilly and Co. and Cummins Inc. spoke of their trouble attracting talent to the state.

Indiana Church Fires Gay Choir Leader and EIGHTY PERCENT of the Congregation QUITS!

The interim minister of the United Methodist Church in Alexandria, Indiana has shamed Christians nationwide in yet another incident of faith-shielded bigotry when he refused Adam Fraley the position of choral director based on his sexual orientation, according to church members David and Nancy Steele.

Fraley had previously functioned as choir director for about six years, and church members were satisfied with his work, according to the Steeles. However, after a new minister joined the church, he said that he was uncomfortable with Fraley leading the music. The unnamed “new” minister, according to the Herald Bulletin, did not fire Fraley, but gave him an additional workload that resulted in Fraley’s resignation.

After about six months, a new interim minister took over, and the Steeles–and the rest of the congregation–were hopeful that David Mantor would accept Fraley back into his old position. Mantor initially agreed, but changed his mind after Fraley was back in the job about three weeks. The next day, he told David Steele that his services would not be needed either, as the district superintendent felt Steele was not supporting the positions of the minister therefore was neglecting his duties.

Under church law, “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.” However, Dan Gangler, director of communications for the Indiana Conference of the United Methodist Church, clarified that the church only prohibits gay people from being ordained. While bigoted and discriminatory, the official church stance is not bigoted nor discriminatory enough to prevent Fraley from leading the church in song. ”Any other leadership positions should be filled at the discretion of the congregation and the minister,” Gangler added.

In other words, it seems as though the minister may be overstepping his bounds in denying the position to Fraley against the congregation’s wishes. “It’s almost like he’s hijacked the church,” said David Steele, “He is completely going against what the church body wants.”

Steele’s family has stopped attending the church–a difficult adjustment for them. In a show of solidarity for Fraley, about 80% of the church congregation has joined them in emptying the pews. “They all embraced him,” Nancy Steele told the Herald Bulletin, “They’re upset about the way he was treated.”

Fraley is touched by the way the congregation stands behind him, and that he feels that his love for another man can exist within the realm of Christianity. ”I don’t like how people pick and choose which verses they want to apply,” said Fraley, “The Bible also says gluttony and divorce are bad but people seem to ignore those.”

Fraley feels that much of the support is because the congregation got to know him before they knew “gay” him. It helped to lessen the barriers that would normally exist. Both Fraley and the Steeles say that, if the situation is rectified, they will return.

Indiana House Committee to Hold Hearing on Gay Marriage Ban on Monday

Indiana's House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, WIBC reports: 

 

A House committee will debate the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on Monday, along with a companion bill explaining what the bill wouldn't do.

Cicero Republican Eric Turner (pictured), the author of the marriage amendment, and Lizton Republican Jeff Thompson have drafted a statement of legislative intent, declaring that the amendment should not be read as undermining domestic-violence laws, preventing employers from offering health benefits to domestic partners, or interfering with wills or trusts.

Opponents of the amendment have warned the ban could have unintended consequences for dozens of laws. House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) calls some of those predicted problems "red herrings," but says some are legitimate concerns. He points to fears voiced by Indiana University that, as a state university, they could be forced to drop insurance coverage for domestic partners. Bosma says the companion bill should put those fears to rest.

Bosma has assigned both the bill and the amendment to the Judiciary Committee. He says he hasn't counted votes but hopes the legislation will pass.

More at WIBC...

Gannett adds, of the companion bill:

That clarifiying language would appear to address some of the concerns raised by employers and others that the amendment would make employee recruitment difficult and make Indiana appear unwelcoming. The clarifying bill, however, seems to still ban civil unions for same-sex couples — a provision that some see as a step too far.

The amendment would need to pass two separately-elected General Assemblies and be approved by a voter majority in a public referendum before becoming part of the constitution.