Dedicated to the advancement of the State of Indiana by re-affirming our state's constitutional principles that: all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust; and no special privileges or immunities shall be granted to any class of citizens which are not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Advance Indiana, LLC. Copyright 2005-16. All rights reserved.
Monday, February 17, 2014
HJR-3 Passes Senate 32-17
Action on HJR-3 this session finally comes to a close after it passed on third reading by a vote of 32-17. Sen. Mike Delph kept his word and voted against it because of the leadership's decision not to allow an amendment to add back the second sentence stripped from the bill in the House, which would have broadened the state's ban on same-sex marriages to extend to civil unions, domestic partnerships or any other form of legal recognition that equated a same-sex marriage to traditional marriages. Sen. Ron Alting, Sen. Vaneta Becker, Sen. Phil Boots and Sen. Pete Miller were four other Republican members who joined Democratic lawmakers in opposing HJR-3. One Democrat, Sen. Richard Young, voted in favor of it. The constitutional amendment must be approved by the members of the next General Assembly before it can go before voters for consideration at the 2016 general election. Meanwhile, all of the important legislative initiatives that screw over the public have flown through the process already under the radar while the legislature turned the public's and the media's attention to this sideshow circus act.
Actually on WRTV's Sunday political talk show Eric Miller mentioned it could be on the ballot in 2015. I know if that is right or not. I know many people who don't live in incorporated cities won't have elections that year. I highly doubt that will happen.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the text of the amended resolution specifically states that it must go before the next General Assembly. I suppose they could take the legislature to court to force it on the ballot, but I suspect the court won't look too friendly on that attempt and defer to legislative prerogative.
ReplyDelete