This morning newspapers in Booneville and Newburgh have full page advertisements pointing out that Representative Russ Stilwell violated a campaign pledge that he made to Advance America for their 2006 voters guide stating that he would "Support Senate Joint Resolution 7, passed by the 2005 General Assembly so the citizens can vote in November 2008 to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions."
Like the ad that ran last Sunday in Anderson concerning Austin’s flip-flop, the voters in Stilwell’s district deserved to know how he voted and what his vote means for marriage protection in Indiana.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
AFA Continues To Misinform Hoosier Voters About SJR-7 Vote
Full-page ads appeared in two newspapers in the district of Rep. Russ Stilwell (D) this past week misrepresenting his vote against SJR-7 in the Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee earlier this session. Explaining the ad (paid for by the Indiana Family Association of Indiana PAC), the AFA's executive director Micah Clark writes:
Showing a picture of two men atop a wedding cake, the ads warned Stilwell's constituents, "Beware: Russ Stilwell's vote could allow a judge to impose this on Indiana." The ad ignores the explanation Stilwell offered for voting against the amendment, which pertained to a second paragraph of the amendment extending its reach well beyond the definition of marriage. It leaves Stilwell's constituents with the impression a state judge could impose same-sex marriages on Indiana if the amendment is not enacted. In fact, Indiana has never recognized same-sex marriages, and a Defense of Marriage Act enacted more than a decade ago specifically bans same-sex marriages in Indiana. Moreover, the Act has been upheld by Indiana's Court of Appeals.
What the AFA doesn't want Stilwell's constituents and other Hoosiers to know is that there is a growing consensus among nonpartisan legal scholars that amendments such as SJR-7 are completely unnecessary where the legislatures have already spoken on the subject. AI will bring you more on what a prominent, conservative Reagan-appointed judge has to say about the amendment, including how it does the opposite amendment proponents promise by empowering judges to further meddle in the debate over marriage.