Governor Mitch Daniels fought back against the false and hate-filled, bigoted assault on his administration's EEO Policy in a one-on-one interview with Christian radio station, WFRN, in Elkhart. WFRN news director, Don Wagner, reported today that Governor Daniels said he's "against discrimination and that people who are hired and fired should be done so based only on their job performance, not on their private lifestyle." Daniels pointed out that his policy is "word-for-word the same employment policy under the Joe Kernan administration." The American Family Association of Indiana under the leadership of Micah Clark has launched a full frontal assault on the policy since its enactment in April. Clark has made various untrue assertions about the policy, even suggesting Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay congressman from Massachusetts, is opposed to Governor Daniel's policy.
Based upon WFRN's reporting of the interview, the Governor did not move the Christian station's news director. In reference to the policy the station reported that "Daniels signed an Equal Employment Opportunity policy that two state pro-family groups feel gives special rights to homosexuals, cross-dressers and men who consider themselves women and women who live as men." Unfortunately, words attributed to Governor Daniels in defense of his policy were not helpful. Daniel's use of "private lifestyle" to describe someone's sexual orientation or identity is offensive to the GLBT community because it implies that a person chooses their sexual orientation or identity. If it were truly a choice, a person could change who they are. As has been pointed out previously by Advance Indiana, every major medical organization has long since recognized that homosexuality is a normal, natural, and fixed sexual orientation. The use of "life style" choice by the Governor only weakens his argument for the policy. The choice argument is always asserted by those who condemn homosexuality and who support laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or identity.
WFRN also revealed in its news report today that Advance America intends to join the American Family Association of Indiana in launching a campaign against Daniel's EEO policy during the next week. While Micah Clark has been very vocal in his opposition to Daniel's EEO policy, Advance America's Eric Miller has been noticeably quiet. That Miller has decided to step into the fray in a public way suggests to Advance Indiana that Miller intends to face off against Governor Daniels in a re-match for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2008. Miller was routed by Governor Daniels in the 2004 primary election, but Miller is not detoured. Since losing that campaign, Miller has maintained an active campaign committee he originally formed in 2001 to run for Governor. According to his latest filings with the Indiana Elections Division, the committee Hoosiers for Miller had cash on hand in the amount of $511,509.66 as of the end of last year. Miller could use these funds to aid other like-minded candidates for office, or he could hold on to the funds and apply them to a 2008 campaign for governor.
Miller's and Clark's decisions to take on Daniel's EEO policy is particularly noteworthy since both men and their organizations remained totally silent when both the late Governor Frank O'Bannon and his successor, Governor Joe Kernan, had enacted identical EEO policies. This is a clear signal that the two are prepared to contest Daniel's re-election efforts. Both were upset by Governor Daniel's initial call for a temporary income tax on persons making more than $100,000. And the debate over the I-69 expansion through southern Indiana remains a major issue which Miller exploited to attract unlikely support from environmentalists in his unsuccessful 2004 campaign for governor.
Advance Indiana is pleased that Governor Daniel's has the courage to walk into the "lion's den" to support his EEO policy of non-discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgendered persons. He should, however, in the future choose his words more carefully so as not to offend the very community he rightfully has chosen to defend, and to avoid providing more fodder for those who oppose his policy.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Church Support Critical For Same Sex Marriage Approval
As has been the case throughout the history of the United States, the support of our nation's churches has been a critical component of all civil rights advancements. Without a shift in the opinion of churches, the struggle to end slavery would have taken much longer and the extent of the human tragedy would have been even worse than it was during our nation's only civil war. Without a shift in the opinion of our churches towards the role of woman in religion and society, women would have continued to be treated as second class citizens throughout the twentieth century. And without the shift in the opinion of churches, the struggle for African-Americans to obtain full equality would have taken far longer than the century it took to obtain a federal civil rights law. Churches play such a critical role in civil rights because the vast majority of Americans are church-going people, and prevailing church dogma has traditionally been the basis for legalized discrimination against classes of persons in our society.
More recently, many mainline Christian denominations have adopted policies opposing discrimination against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and have urged the adoption of civil rights laws to prevent discrimination, even while they opposed same sex marriages. The support of these churches have undeniably aided in the passage of human rights laws throughout the country. Where efforts to pass such laws have failed, such as Indianapolis, the failure has been largely attributed to opposition from Christian fundamentalists. The impact of this week's decision by the United Church of Christ to officially change church policy to support same sex marriages cannot be understated. The UCC, which boasts national membership of more than 1.3 million Americans, was also one of the first mainline Christian churches in this country to shift its opinion on slavery and equality for women. The UCC's rationale for its new position as stated in the resolution was as follows:
"[The church has historically stood with the disenfranchised. From support by our predecessor denominations for abolition of slavery to recognition of woman as equal partners in religious leadership, we have consistently honored the biblical injunction to support the 'least of these'. We hold that, as a child of God, every person is endowed with worth and dignity that human judgment cannot set aside. We believe that recognition of sacred joining of individuals is deserving of serious, faithful discussion by persons of faith, taking into consideration the long, complex history of marriage and family life, layered as it is by cultural practices, economic realities, political dynamics, religious history, and biblical interpretations . . . . The Bible affirms and celebrates many human expressions of love and partnership. The Biblical understanding of covenant calls us to live as full participants with God in responsible and committed relationships. There are a myriad of family relationships. The underlying call in these relationships is to live in wholeness and responsibility with one another. . . .THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the United Church of Christ call upon its conferences, associations and member churches to enter into prayer, study and conversations regarding marriage, covenanted relationships and equal access to civil marriage for all persons."
As reported in today's Indianapolis Star, the resolution in support of same sex marriages was overwhelmingly approved by the UCC's governing body, receiving the support of eighty percent of the representatives in attendance at the church's 884-member General Synod in Atlanta, Georgia. The Rev. John H. Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, said with the vote on Independence Day, the rule-making body "acted courageously to declare freedom" according to the Star story. The Star report also stated that "[a] small group of conservative congregations had proposed an alternative resolution defining marriage as between a man and a woman and suggested that supporting gay marriage could lead to the church's collapse." Missing from the Star report of the minority resolution , however, was the language it contained equating same sex marriages to bestiality ala Rep. Woody Burton. The resolution included the following bigoted passage: "Worship, declares that marriage is not to be conferred on bigamous, polygamous, or same-sex unions, or on any union of human and animal (emphasis added), but is to be between one man and one woman with no exceptions. The attitude reflected by the minority resolution reveals the extent of the bigoted views held by fundamentalists who oppose any acceptance of homosexuals on any level. A leading proponent of the minority resolution, Rev. Brett Becker, said of the resolution's passage, "This is truly Independence Day for the UCC -- we have declared ourselves independent from the teachings of Jesus and the clear teachings of Scripture." It might be asked of Mr. Becker where Jesus tells us in the Bible about his own marital status or sexual orientation?
This week's major shift in church policy by the United Church of Christ will likely be the first in a line of denominational policy shifts on the issue of same sex marriage. Protestant churches are run in a comparatively democratic fashion and are sensitive to changing public attitudes on various issues. There will no doubt be many hardline protestant Christian churches who will remain steadfast in their opposition to the recognition of any rights for gays and lesbians; however, as public sentiment continues its shift in favor of gay civil rights, even the hardline churches will eventually be forced to change their views, just as they were with respect to the civil rights of American blacks and women, in order to avoid being marginalized. The Catholic Church too will likely maintain its strong opposition to same sex marriage. Changes in the Catholic Church come about very slowly because of its less democratic form of governance. Speaking recently Pope Benedict XVI in one of his first public statements on the subject called gay marriage "anarchy." Of course, the American public is still awaiting a public apology for the church's mishandling of child sexual abuse by the church's clergy even as the church has paid out more than an estimated billion dollars to settle civil cases in the United States and elsewhere around the world concerning child sex abuse. The Catholic Church risks a complete loss of credibility with the American public on a whole host of issues if it does not deal with growing cries for church reform.
As church views continue to change in favor of equal treatment for gays and lesbians, politicians will no longer be able to hang their hat on "relgious principle" as a basis for legalized discrmination. The UCC's decision this week is of historic proportion. And you can take that to the bank.
More recently, many mainline Christian denominations have adopted policies opposing discrimination against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and have urged the adoption of civil rights laws to prevent discrimination, even while they opposed same sex marriages. The support of these churches have undeniably aided in the passage of human rights laws throughout the country. Where efforts to pass such laws have failed, such as Indianapolis, the failure has been largely attributed to opposition from Christian fundamentalists. The impact of this week's decision by the United Church of Christ to officially change church policy to support same sex marriages cannot be understated. The UCC, which boasts national membership of more than 1.3 million Americans, was also one of the first mainline Christian churches in this country to shift its opinion on slavery and equality for women. The UCC's rationale for its new position as stated in the resolution was as follows:
"[The church has historically stood with the disenfranchised. From support by our predecessor denominations for abolition of slavery to recognition of woman as equal partners in religious leadership, we have consistently honored the biblical injunction to support the 'least of these'. We hold that, as a child of God, every person is endowed with worth and dignity that human judgment cannot set aside. We believe that recognition of sacred joining of individuals is deserving of serious, faithful discussion by persons of faith, taking into consideration the long, complex history of marriage and family life, layered as it is by cultural practices, economic realities, political dynamics, religious history, and biblical interpretations . . . . The Bible affirms and celebrates many human expressions of love and partnership. The Biblical understanding of covenant calls us to live as full participants with God in responsible and committed relationships. There are a myriad of family relationships. The underlying call in these relationships is to live in wholeness and responsibility with one another. . . .THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the United Church of Christ call upon its conferences, associations and member churches to enter into prayer, study and conversations regarding marriage, covenanted relationships and equal access to civil marriage for all persons."
As reported in today's Indianapolis Star, the resolution in support of same sex marriages was overwhelmingly approved by the UCC's governing body, receiving the support of eighty percent of the representatives in attendance at the church's 884-member General Synod in Atlanta, Georgia. The Rev. John H. Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, said with the vote on Independence Day, the rule-making body "acted courageously to declare freedom" according to the Star story. The Star report also stated that "[a] small group of conservative congregations had proposed an alternative resolution defining marriage as between a man and a woman and suggested that supporting gay marriage could lead to the church's collapse." Missing from the Star report of the minority resolution , however, was the language it contained equating same sex marriages to bestiality ala Rep. Woody Burton. The resolution included the following bigoted passage: "Worship, declares that marriage is not to be conferred on bigamous, polygamous, or same-sex unions, or on any union of human and animal (emphasis added), but is to be between one man and one woman with no exceptions. The attitude reflected by the minority resolution reveals the extent of the bigoted views held by fundamentalists who oppose any acceptance of homosexuals on any level. A leading proponent of the minority resolution, Rev. Brett Becker, said of the resolution's passage, "This is truly Independence Day for the UCC -- we have declared ourselves independent from the teachings of Jesus and the clear teachings of Scripture." It might be asked of Mr. Becker where Jesus tells us in the Bible about his own marital status or sexual orientation?
This week's major shift in church policy by the United Church of Christ will likely be the first in a line of denominational policy shifts on the issue of same sex marriage. Protestant churches are run in a comparatively democratic fashion and are sensitive to changing public attitudes on various issues. There will no doubt be many hardline protestant Christian churches who will remain steadfast in their opposition to the recognition of any rights for gays and lesbians; however, as public sentiment continues its shift in favor of gay civil rights, even the hardline churches will eventually be forced to change their views, just as they were with respect to the civil rights of American blacks and women, in order to avoid being marginalized. The Catholic Church too will likely maintain its strong opposition to same sex marriage. Changes in the Catholic Church come about very slowly because of its less democratic form of governance. Speaking recently Pope Benedict XVI in one of his first public statements on the subject called gay marriage "anarchy." Of course, the American public is still awaiting a public apology for the church's mishandling of child sexual abuse by the church's clergy even as the church has paid out more than an estimated billion dollars to settle civil cases in the United States and elsewhere around the world concerning child sex abuse. The Catholic Church risks a complete loss of credibility with the American public on a whole host of issues if it does not deal with growing cries for church reform.
As church views continue to change in favor of equal treatment for gays and lesbians, politicians will no longer be able to hang their hat on "relgious principle" as a basis for legalized discrmination. The UCC's decision this week is of historic proportion. And you can take that to the bank.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
The "Eric Miller Patriot Act"
As with each legislative session of the Indiana General Assembly, Advance America and its Grand Dragon of moral righteousness, Eric Miller, arrive at the State House with an offering of legislative proposals to save us all from the evil world of secularism that they warn us is strangling the life out of all of us. This year was no different than any other year. Of course, we had SJR 7, the constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages and civil unions, neither of which have ever been legal in Indiana. We still needed saved though because this great threat to the institution of marriage between a man and woman is just around the corner ready to pounce on us like a lion on its prey at any moment, and we have to be prepared for the worst. Less talked about, but equally as critical, was the enactment of the "Eric Miller Patriot Act." This new law, which took effect on July 1, as a way of promoting patriotism in our schools, requires all public classrooms to display the American flag and to provide a daily opportunity for students to participate in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Our schools will also now be required to provide a daily moment of silence in each classroom to allow the students to pray, medidate or engage in any other silent activity while all the students are either standing or sitting.
The "Eric Miller Patriot Act" was authored in the Senate by Senator Mike Young, a Republican political operative from Indianapolis. The House sponsor was Representative Bill Ruppel, a Republican from North Manchester, who is well known for his trademark, noticeably stained American flag ties he can be seen wearing most days the legislature is in session. The stampede of other legislators who signed on as co-sponsors is too long to list here. The Senate passed the measure by a vote of 46-3, while the House passed it by a vote of 86-6. One might ask: How could any legislator in his or her right mind vote against a "God, country and applie pie" bill like the "Eric Miller Patriot Act"? Maybe a conscienteous legislator who holds something else far more sacred, namely federal and state constitutional protections against the establishment of any religion by the government. As Justice Felix Frankfurter said in McCollum v. Board of Education in 1948: "The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the State is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart."
The McCollum case struck down sectarian teaching in the public schools, which was still commonplace in the 1940s even though the Establishment Clause had long since been recognized. In 1963, the Supreme Court once again weighed in on the issue and struck down prayer in school in Abington School District v. Schempp. The proponents of school prayer decried the decision warning "that unless these religious exercises are permitted a 'religion of secularism' [will be] established in the schools." No, the Court said, "In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality."
What everyone needs to understand about the "Eric Miller Patriot Act" is that it is not a new idea in Indiana. The Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, D.C. Stephenson, promoted a nearly identifical measure as part of his "Americanization" agenda during he and KKK's reign of terror over Indiana politics during the 1920s. At that time most public schools in Indiana had a strong protestant Christian bent to their curriculum, often making the classrooms inhospitable to Catholics and people who practiced other "non-traditional" faiths. The KKK pushed a number of school-related measures to promote the prevailing protestant, fundamentalists views in our classrooms at the same time it sought to make it difficult for Catholics to establish their own parochial schools in Indiana. The requirements for the American flag, Pledge of Allegiance and school prayer in all public classrooms were just some of several measures enacted at the insistence of the KKK.
Regardless of what Eric Miller and his adherents will tell you, their purpose in promoting this legislation was purely for religious purposes. If the Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words, "One Nation Under God", Miller and his adherents would not bother with this issue. The recitation, taken together with a moment of silence, are intended as nothing more than subtle reminders to everyone else that this is a "Christian Nation", like it or leave it. Yes, students don't have to recite the pledge or say a silent prayer, but the occasion of non-participation by a dissenting student will not go unnoticed by his/her classmates who do participate. This has all the hallmarks of creating an impermissible, coercive environment for dissenting students. It also creates opportunity for abuse by teachers who are passionate about their religious views. The likelihood of our public schools becoming embroiled in religious disputes and litigation as a consequence of this new law are all but certain. But fear not for our schools won't have to pick up the tab for the cost of the litigation. The "Eric Miller Patriot Act" will require the Indiana Attorney General to defend any public schools who are sued in carrying out the law so the state's taxpayers get to pick up the tab for this meaningless law.
The "Eric Miller Patriot Act" will do nothing to better educate our state's children to meet the challenges in life they will face upon graduation. What it does is impose another one of the Christian fundamentalists "litmus" tests on our elected representatives and judges: "you're either walking with Jesus with us or you're dancing with the devil." At what point will our elected representatives finally wake up to Eric Miller's games and put him out of business for good. The public continues to subsidize his supposed non-profit, nonpartisan "education" organization so he can whipsaw the legislature into enacting these completely unnecessary enactments to further the entanglement of government into religion and create costly and time-consuming litigation that distracts us from what should be our central concern- educating our children- all while he personally enriches himself. Enjoy your Fourth of July; you're going to feel more secure than ever this year knowing you have the "Eric Miller Patriot Act".
The "Eric Miller Patriot Act" was authored in the Senate by Senator Mike Young, a Republican political operative from Indianapolis. The House sponsor was Representative Bill Ruppel, a Republican from North Manchester, who is well known for his trademark, noticeably stained American flag ties he can be seen wearing most days the legislature is in session. The stampede of other legislators who signed on as co-sponsors is too long to list here. The Senate passed the measure by a vote of 46-3, while the House passed it by a vote of 86-6. One might ask: How could any legislator in his or her right mind vote against a "God, country and applie pie" bill like the "Eric Miller Patriot Act"? Maybe a conscienteous legislator who holds something else far more sacred, namely federal and state constitutional protections against the establishment of any religion by the government. As Justice Felix Frankfurter said in McCollum v. Board of Education in 1948: "The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the State is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart."
The McCollum case struck down sectarian teaching in the public schools, which was still commonplace in the 1940s even though the Establishment Clause had long since been recognized. In 1963, the Supreme Court once again weighed in on the issue and struck down prayer in school in Abington School District v. Schempp. The proponents of school prayer decried the decision warning "that unless these religious exercises are permitted a 'religion of secularism' [will be] established in the schools." No, the Court said, "In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality."
What everyone needs to understand about the "Eric Miller Patriot Act" is that it is not a new idea in Indiana. The Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, D.C. Stephenson, promoted a nearly identifical measure as part of his "Americanization" agenda during he and KKK's reign of terror over Indiana politics during the 1920s. At that time most public schools in Indiana had a strong protestant Christian bent to their curriculum, often making the classrooms inhospitable to Catholics and people who practiced other "non-traditional" faiths. The KKK pushed a number of school-related measures to promote the prevailing protestant, fundamentalists views in our classrooms at the same time it sought to make it difficult for Catholics to establish their own parochial schools in Indiana. The requirements for the American flag, Pledge of Allegiance and school prayer in all public classrooms were just some of several measures enacted at the insistence of the KKK.
Regardless of what Eric Miller and his adherents will tell you, their purpose in promoting this legislation was purely for religious purposes. If the Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words, "One Nation Under God", Miller and his adherents would not bother with this issue. The recitation, taken together with a moment of silence, are intended as nothing more than subtle reminders to everyone else that this is a "Christian Nation", like it or leave it. Yes, students don't have to recite the pledge or say a silent prayer, but the occasion of non-participation by a dissenting student will not go unnoticed by his/her classmates who do participate. This has all the hallmarks of creating an impermissible, coercive environment for dissenting students. It also creates opportunity for abuse by teachers who are passionate about their religious views. The likelihood of our public schools becoming embroiled in religious disputes and litigation as a consequence of this new law are all but certain. But fear not for our schools won't have to pick up the tab for the cost of the litigation. The "Eric Miller Patriot Act" will require the Indiana Attorney General to defend any public schools who are sued in carrying out the law so the state's taxpayers get to pick up the tab for this meaningless law.
The "Eric Miller Patriot Act" will do nothing to better educate our state's children to meet the challenges in life they will face upon graduation. What it does is impose another one of the Christian fundamentalists "litmus" tests on our elected representatives and judges: "you're either walking with Jesus with us or you're dancing with the devil." At what point will our elected representatives finally wake up to Eric Miller's games and put him out of business for good. The public continues to subsidize his supposed non-profit, nonpartisan "education" organization so he can whipsaw the legislature into enacting these completely unnecessary enactments to further the entanglement of government into religion and create costly and time-consuming litigation that distracts us from what should be our central concern- educating our children- all while he personally enriches himself. Enjoy your Fourth of July; you're going to feel more secure than ever this year knowing you have the "Eric Miller Patriot Act".
Friday, July 01, 2005
Advance America's Lobbying Reports Belie The Extent of Its Lobbying Activities
Advance America’s declared nonpartisan, tax-exempt purpose is “education”, but an analysis of lobbyist reports filed by the organization with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission disclose that it lobbies the legislature on a wide variety of issues unrelated to its “education” purpose. The reports, like the organization’s federal tax returns, also seem to grossly understate the extent of its lobbying activities. Advance America’s lobbyist reports were prepared by its founder Eric Miller, except for the period covering 2004 when Miller stepped down from his position as the organization’s high paid executive director to pursue his bid to become the Republican gubernatorial nominee in the May, 2004 primary, which he lost to Governor Mitch Daniels.
Individuals, businesses and organizations which seek to influence the Indiana General Assembly are required to annually register as either an employer lobbyist or a compensated lobbyist with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission. In addition, registered lobbyists are required to file activity reports semi-annually detailing the amount of their lobbying expenditures during a reporting period. Violations of the Lobby Law are a Class D felony, which includes knowingly or intentionally making a false report that understates the amount of lobbying expenditures. Also, the Commission has authority to impose civil monetary damages for certain offenses. Eric Miller had been the only lobbyist registered on behalf of the organization until he stepped down to pursue his personal bid to become governor in 2004. Dwight Williams, who succeeded Miller as the organization’s executive director, registered to lobby on behalf of Advance America in 2004. Both Williams and Miller have registered in 2005 to lobby for the organization.
All lobbyists are required to annually register and disclose the subject matter of their lobbying activities. Advance America, an educational non-profit organization, identified “education” as but one of the many issues on which it lobbies. It identifies more than two dozen diverse issues on which it lobbies, including AIDS, alcoholic beverages, banking, budget, civil justice, commerce, finance, gaming, insurance, judiciary, labor, property tax, real estate and reproductive rights among others. The reports underscore the expansive reach of the organization's lobbying activities.
All lobbyists are required to report all lobbying expenditures made during each legislative calendar year by filing activity reports semi-annually. “Lobbying” is defined as “communicating by any means, or paying others to communicate by any means, with any legislative official with the purpose of influencing any legislative action.” Lobbying expenditures include: compensation paid to others to lobby; reimbursements to other who perform lobbying on your behalf; receptions for legislators; entertainment, including meals (unless the entire General Assembly is invited; gifts; and any other expenditures made for lobbying purposes. It does not include overhead costs, postage, express mail, faxes, telephone calls, support staff for lobbyists, office rental and personal expenses of the lobbyist. It would include any expenses the organization incurs in drafting legislation, meeting with legislators, testifying before committees and otherwise in communicating with legislators to influence legislative action. Certainly, any expenses Advance America incurred in connection with its high production rally in support of SJR 7, the constitutional ban on same sex marriages and civil unions, at the State House earlier this year would have been a reportable expenditure.
During the period of 2000 through the first reporting period of 2005, Advance America reported spending a total of $151,707.89 for lobbying the Indiana General Assembly. Federal lobbying reporting requirements under the Internal Revenue Code are more expansive than the state lobbying reporting requirements, which apply only to expenditures made to lobby the state legislative branch. Oddly, the organization reported just $3,855.67 in expenditures in 2004 while Miller was running for Governor and the gay marriage debate was raging in the Indiana House of Representatives. In the most recent reporting period covering the just completed 2005 legislative session during which Advance America successfully lobbied for several measures, including the constitutional ban on same sex marriages and civil unions, the organization reported total expenditures of just $28,093.07. Its annual lobbying expenditures range from as little as 3% of its total annual expenditures to as much as 7%. Its expenditures by year were as follows:
2000 $23,862.00
2001 $38,397.82
2002 $34,420.18
2003 $23,079.15
2004 $ 3,855.67
2005 $28,093.07
As an employer lobbyist, Advance America is required to disclose the amount of compensation paid to its employees or others for lobbying. While Miller earned a six-figure income as executive director of Advance America, it reported very small sums in annual paid lobbying compensation. The organization reported spending $11,437.94 for paid compensation in 2000, $13,297.43 in 2001, $13,079.90 in 2002, $4,028.35 in 2003 and only $1,417.86 in 2004. During the just completed legislative session, the organization’s report showed a mere $3,345.00 was spent by the organization for paid compensation for lobbying.
According to a Lobby Registration Commission advisory opinion, employer lobbyists are required to report not only compensation paid to its employees for lobbying but also vested employee benefits and fringe benefits such as a company car. An employer lobbyist is required to report a pro-rata portion of the compensated employee’s salary based upon the amount of time he spends lobbying according to commission advisory opinions. For example, if 50% of an employee’s time is devoted to lobbying activities, then 50% of the amount of his annual pay should be reported as paid compensation, plus 50% of any vested employee benefit or fringe benefit. Advance Indiana’s analysis of Advance America’s lobbying reports reveals that the organization has reported well under 10% of Eric Miller’s actual annual pay and benefits as paid compensation, which typically were well above $100,000. As we have previously reported, the overarching activity of Advance America is to pursue its Christian fundamentalist legislative agenda; any educational activities are merely incidental to the lobbying work it performs on behalf of its causes. As the organization’s only registered lobbyist during most of the period analyzed, it is inconceivable that Miller spent less than 10% of his time on lobbying matters while working for the organization.
The organization spent very little on entertainment, receptions or gifts for legislators. All remaining expenditures fall into a catchall category called “other expenditures”. The amount of “other expenditures” reported by the organization are seemingly trivial, given the organization’s strong presence at the State House. It reported “other lobbying” expenditures of $14,316.30 in 2001, $21,149.20 in 2002, $18,950.80 in 2003, $1,955.13 in 2004 and $24,336.20 in the first reporting period for 2005. The small amount of expenditures reported by Advance America in 2004, $1,955.13, is particularly incredible given the organization’s full court press during the 2004 session to pressure then-Speaker Pat Bauer to hear its proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution banning same sex marriages and civil unions. A great deal of Advance America’s activities involve grassroots lobbying, which is a little grayer area of the lobbying law. Unless Advance America’s grassroots efforts result in directly connecting a member of the public to a legislator, the activity is not reportable. It is not clear if Advance America’s grassroots activities reach this threshold.
Eric Miller also filed activity reports during the period analyzed, except for the period he stepped down as Advance America’s executive director to run for governor. Miller typically reported no lobbying expenditures other than trivial amounts for meals or an occasional gift. Typically, compensated lobbyists do not incur lobbying expenditures; they are borne by the employer lobbyist, which in Miller’s case is Advance America.
Advance Indiana’s analysis of Advance America’s lobbying reports are further evidence of the organization’s efforts to skirt federal and state public disclosure and reporting laws to protect its non-profit status. It also beckons for a full investigation of the organization and its founder, Eric Miller. The taxpayers have a right to know whether Miller and Advance America are unlawfully benefiting as a tax-subsidized organization. These so-called exemplars of moral righteousness are duty-bound to abide by our federal and state laws as much as anyone else. If Miller and Advance America believe they are in compliance with federal and state laws, then they should have no problem opening their books up to public inspection.
Individuals, businesses and organizations which seek to influence the Indiana General Assembly are required to annually register as either an employer lobbyist or a compensated lobbyist with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission. In addition, registered lobbyists are required to file activity reports semi-annually detailing the amount of their lobbying expenditures during a reporting period. Violations of the Lobby Law are a Class D felony, which includes knowingly or intentionally making a false report that understates the amount of lobbying expenditures. Also, the Commission has authority to impose civil monetary damages for certain offenses. Eric Miller had been the only lobbyist registered on behalf of the organization until he stepped down to pursue his personal bid to become governor in 2004. Dwight Williams, who succeeded Miller as the organization’s executive director, registered to lobby on behalf of Advance America in 2004. Both Williams and Miller have registered in 2005 to lobby for the organization.
All lobbyists are required to annually register and disclose the subject matter of their lobbying activities. Advance America, an educational non-profit organization, identified “education” as but one of the many issues on which it lobbies. It identifies more than two dozen diverse issues on which it lobbies, including AIDS, alcoholic beverages, banking, budget, civil justice, commerce, finance, gaming, insurance, judiciary, labor, property tax, real estate and reproductive rights among others. The reports underscore the expansive reach of the organization's lobbying activities.
All lobbyists are required to report all lobbying expenditures made during each legislative calendar year by filing activity reports semi-annually. “Lobbying” is defined as “communicating by any means, or paying others to communicate by any means, with any legislative official with the purpose of influencing any legislative action.” Lobbying expenditures include: compensation paid to others to lobby; reimbursements to other who perform lobbying on your behalf; receptions for legislators; entertainment, including meals (unless the entire General Assembly is invited; gifts; and any other expenditures made for lobbying purposes. It does not include overhead costs, postage, express mail, faxes, telephone calls, support staff for lobbyists, office rental and personal expenses of the lobbyist. It would include any expenses the organization incurs in drafting legislation, meeting with legislators, testifying before committees and otherwise in communicating with legislators to influence legislative action. Certainly, any expenses Advance America incurred in connection with its high production rally in support of SJR 7, the constitutional ban on same sex marriages and civil unions, at the State House earlier this year would have been a reportable expenditure.
During the period of 2000 through the first reporting period of 2005, Advance America reported spending a total of $151,707.89 for lobbying the Indiana General Assembly. Federal lobbying reporting requirements under the Internal Revenue Code are more expansive than the state lobbying reporting requirements, which apply only to expenditures made to lobby the state legislative branch. Oddly, the organization reported just $3,855.67 in expenditures in 2004 while Miller was running for Governor and the gay marriage debate was raging in the Indiana House of Representatives. In the most recent reporting period covering the just completed 2005 legislative session during which Advance America successfully lobbied for several measures, including the constitutional ban on same sex marriages and civil unions, the organization reported total expenditures of just $28,093.07. Its annual lobbying expenditures range from as little as 3% of its total annual expenditures to as much as 7%. Its expenditures by year were as follows:
2000 $23,862.00
2001 $38,397.82
2002 $34,420.18
2003 $23,079.15
2004 $ 3,855.67
2005 $28,093.07
As an employer lobbyist, Advance America is required to disclose the amount of compensation paid to its employees or others for lobbying. While Miller earned a six-figure income as executive director of Advance America, it reported very small sums in annual paid lobbying compensation. The organization reported spending $11,437.94 for paid compensation in 2000, $13,297.43 in 2001, $13,079.90 in 2002, $4,028.35 in 2003 and only $1,417.86 in 2004. During the just completed legislative session, the organization’s report showed a mere $3,345.00 was spent by the organization for paid compensation for lobbying.
According to a Lobby Registration Commission advisory opinion, employer lobbyists are required to report not only compensation paid to its employees for lobbying but also vested employee benefits and fringe benefits such as a company car. An employer lobbyist is required to report a pro-rata portion of the compensated employee’s salary based upon the amount of time he spends lobbying according to commission advisory opinions. For example, if 50% of an employee’s time is devoted to lobbying activities, then 50% of the amount of his annual pay should be reported as paid compensation, plus 50% of any vested employee benefit or fringe benefit. Advance Indiana’s analysis of Advance America’s lobbying reports reveals that the organization has reported well under 10% of Eric Miller’s actual annual pay and benefits as paid compensation, which typically were well above $100,000. As we have previously reported, the overarching activity of Advance America is to pursue its Christian fundamentalist legislative agenda; any educational activities are merely incidental to the lobbying work it performs on behalf of its causes. As the organization’s only registered lobbyist during most of the period analyzed, it is inconceivable that Miller spent less than 10% of his time on lobbying matters while working for the organization.
The organization spent very little on entertainment, receptions or gifts for legislators. All remaining expenditures fall into a catchall category called “other expenditures”. The amount of “other expenditures” reported by the organization are seemingly trivial, given the organization’s strong presence at the State House. It reported “other lobbying” expenditures of $14,316.30 in 2001, $21,149.20 in 2002, $18,950.80 in 2003, $1,955.13 in 2004 and $24,336.20 in the first reporting period for 2005. The small amount of expenditures reported by Advance America in 2004, $1,955.13, is particularly incredible given the organization’s full court press during the 2004 session to pressure then-Speaker Pat Bauer to hear its proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution banning same sex marriages and civil unions. A great deal of Advance America’s activities involve grassroots lobbying, which is a little grayer area of the lobbying law. Unless Advance America’s grassroots efforts result in directly connecting a member of the public to a legislator, the activity is not reportable. It is not clear if Advance America’s grassroots activities reach this threshold.
Eric Miller also filed activity reports during the period analyzed, except for the period he stepped down as Advance America’s executive director to run for governor. Miller typically reported no lobbying expenditures other than trivial amounts for meals or an occasional gift. Typically, compensated lobbyists do not incur lobbying expenditures; they are borne by the employer lobbyist, which in Miller’s case is Advance America.
Advance Indiana’s analysis of Advance America’s lobbying reports are further evidence of the organization’s efforts to skirt federal and state public disclosure and reporting laws to protect its non-profit status. It also beckons for a full investigation of the organization and its founder, Eric Miller. The taxpayers have a right to know whether Miller and Advance America are unlawfully benefiting as a tax-subsidized organization. These so-called exemplars of moral righteousness are duty-bound to abide by our federal and state laws as much as anyone else. If Miller and Advance America believe they are in compliance with federal and state laws, then they should have no problem opening their books up to public inspection.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Croddy Responds: "I Have Love In My Heart For You Not Bigotry"
Three weeks after Advance Indiana posted a story criticizing Republican 7th congressional district candidate, Bob Croddy, for his sharp attacks on Congresswoman Julia Carson for her support of gay civil rights and opposition to a constitutional ban on same sex marriages, Croddy has responded with an open letter to the people of Indianapolis via a comment posted early this morning to the original story posted on June 9, 2005, entitled “Croddy’s Cruddy Campaign Against Carson.” Croddy says he believes Advance Indiana has “misstated [his] feelings on these matters.” Croddy says he has reread his press release to which Advance Indiana's criticism was directed several times, and that “[n]owhere [does he] read hatred or bigotry.” Croddy continued, “I have love in my heart for you not bigotry.”
Croddy defended his criticism of Carson by pointing to the five Democrat councilors who also voted against Proposal 68, including Patrice Abdullah, Ron Gibson, Mary Moriarty Adams, Sherron Franklin and City-County Council President Steve Talley. Croddy rhetorically asked if “these five Democrats displayed hatred and gay bigotry” as well. He suggested Advance Indiana “write more about them.” Croddy said he was “born and raised in Center Township” and “has a good pulse of the people in Marion County.” He also seemingly dismissed Advance Indiana editor because he “is from Illinois.” Croddy said, “I don’t know many people from Illinois.”
Advance Indiana is pleased that Mr. Croddy took the time to read our story and respond to it. Since Mr. Croddy does not understand how his press release displayed hate and bigotry towards gays and lesbians, Advance Indiana will endeavor to instruct him. Mr. Croddy issued a press release, which was entitled “Extreme Liberal Democrat Leaders Like Julia Carson Are Wrong to Push Same Sex Marriage," immediately after it became publicly known that Congresswoman Julia Carson had called together leading Marion County Democrats and members of the gay and lesbian community to scold the five Democratic councilors for their opposition to Proposal 68, which would protect Indianapolis residents from discrimination in matters of employment and housing on the basis of their sexual orientation or identity. Croddy’s press release said, “Julia Carson’s recent scolding of local Democrat leaders who chose not to support the city-county council proposal to classify lifestyle (emphasis added) as a special interest group shows just how out of touch those of us in Marion County.” The release continued, “She chooses extreme liberal special interest groups (emphasis added) in Washington and San Francisco over her constituents here in Indianapolis time and time again.”
Mr. Croddy’s use of the words “to classify lifestyle as a special interest group” in describing Proposal 68 says it all. A lifestyle is something you choose Mr. Croddy, like whether to live in the city or in the country, or whether to eat healthy or to pig out on junk food. One’s sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice. Every major medical organization has long since recognized that homosexuality is a normal, natural, and fixed sexual orientation. When Mr. Croddy suggests that people choose to be gay or lesbian, he provides comfort to those who are intolerant of gays and lesbians and fuels hate and bigotry towards them. Mr. Croddy further inflames his rhetoric with the use of “extreme liberal special interest groups in Washington and San Francisco” to describe all gays and lesbians. By broadly categorizing an entire group of citizens who come from all walks of life, who include both Republicans and Democrats, who attend church, who pay taxes, who fight and die for their country, and who want the same basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as he enjoys as extremists, he reveals the truly deep-seated disdain he has for gays and lesbians.
Rep. Carson’s speech to local Democrats had nothing to do with the subject of same sex marriages. Yet that didn’t stop Mr. Croddy from raising the issue in his press release. He implied that Rep. Carson’s opposition to the constitutional ban on same sex marriages meant that she did not “want to protect our families”, and that she wanted to discard “thousands of years of tradition.” To suggest that a formal union between two loving people of the same sex is a threat to your’s or anyone else’s family is gay-baiting at its lowest common denominator.
As to your suggestion that the five Democratic councilors who voted against Proposal 68 were not equally criticized for their votes, that is simply not true. Advance Indiana and the GLBT community in general has been highly critical of those members, particularly Patrice Abdullah, who said he based his vote on his religious beliefs. Unlike you, however, none of those five accompanied their votes with hate-filled bigoted comments as you did in your press release. That is why you were singled out for criticism.
Advance Indiana is also very bothered by the fact that you would be dismissive of its editor, Gary R. Welsh, simply because he is originally from Illinois. He in fact was born in Terre Haute, Indiana and has lived in Indianapolis for the past 15 years, not that it should matter in the least bit. As Advance Indiana explored in earlier reporting of D.C. Stephenson’s and the KKK’s reign of terror over Indiana politics in the 1920s, nativist sentiment was one of the driving forces behind their bigoted “Americanization” agenda. Your dismissiveness of Advance Indiana’s editor because he is from Illinois originally and not born and raised here as you demonstrates that you think just like D.C. Stephenson and his KKK adherents in the 1920s.
I truly wish Mr. Croddy that I could believe you when you say “I have love in my heart and not bigotry”, but the words you chose to use in your press release and your reply letter to Advance Indiana's reporting belies that. For those of you interested, the full text of Mr. Croddy’s letter to the Indianapolis community is furnished below.
Dear Indianapolis Friends,
I believe the writer above has misstated my feelings on these matters. First, 5 Democrats on the City -County Council agree with me. To make it seem like I am extreme is kind of silly. The vote broke down 18 to 11 against ordinance 68-2005 -Democrats and Republicans together voted this ordinance down. I simply agree with City-County Councilors Patrice Abduallah(D),Sherron Franklin(D),Ron Gibson(D),Mary Moriarty Adams(D),Steve Talley(D) and the 13 out of 14 Republicans that voted this ordinance down. Do these five Democrats display hatred and gay bigotry? Maybe you should write more about them. Does Bob Croddy display hatred and gay bigotry? No -I don't think so. The fact is...I have only love in my heart for my fellow man/woman. I am no judge or jury on these matters. I have love in my heart for you not bigotry. I have read my press release several times. Nowhere do I read hatred or bigotry. The way I see it this urban Republican born and raised in Center Township has a good pulse of the people here in Marion County’s 7th. My family dates back close to 100 years in Center Township. I understand the people I come from just fine. My pulse seems to be in-line with thousands of Democrats in Marion County. I understand the man who wrote this article is from Illinois. I don’t know many people from Illinois. Again, I agree with the 5 Democrats City-County Councilors in Marion County but with only love in my heart for my fellow citizen.
Bob Croddy
2:18 AM
Croddy defended his criticism of Carson by pointing to the five Democrat councilors who also voted against Proposal 68, including Patrice Abdullah, Ron Gibson, Mary Moriarty Adams, Sherron Franklin and City-County Council President Steve Talley. Croddy rhetorically asked if “these five Democrats displayed hatred and gay bigotry” as well. He suggested Advance Indiana “write more about them.” Croddy said he was “born and raised in Center Township” and “has a good pulse of the people in Marion County.” He also seemingly dismissed Advance Indiana editor because he “is from Illinois.” Croddy said, “I don’t know many people from Illinois.”
Advance Indiana is pleased that Mr. Croddy took the time to read our story and respond to it. Since Mr. Croddy does not understand how his press release displayed hate and bigotry towards gays and lesbians, Advance Indiana will endeavor to instruct him. Mr. Croddy issued a press release, which was entitled “Extreme Liberal Democrat Leaders Like Julia Carson Are Wrong to Push Same Sex Marriage," immediately after it became publicly known that Congresswoman Julia Carson had called together leading Marion County Democrats and members of the gay and lesbian community to scold the five Democratic councilors for their opposition to Proposal 68, which would protect Indianapolis residents from discrimination in matters of employment and housing on the basis of their sexual orientation or identity. Croddy’s press release said, “Julia Carson’s recent scolding of local Democrat leaders who chose not to support the city-county council proposal to classify lifestyle (emphasis added) as a special interest group shows just how out of touch those of us in Marion County.” The release continued, “She chooses extreme liberal special interest groups (emphasis added) in Washington and San Francisco over her constituents here in Indianapolis time and time again.”
Mr. Croddy’s use of the words “to classify lifestyle as a special interest group” in describing Proposal 68 says it all. A lifestyle is something you choose Mr. Croddy, like whether to live in the city or in the country, or whether to eat healthy or to pig out on junk food. One’s sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice. Every major medical organization has long since recognized that homosexuality is a normal, natural, and fixed sexual orientation. When Mr. Croddy suggests that people choose to be gay or lesbian, he provides comfort to those who are intolerant of gays and lesbians and fuels hate and bigotry towards them. Mr. Croddy further inflames his rhetoric with the use of “extreme liberal special interest groups in Washington and San Francisco” to describe all gays and lesbians. By broadly categorizing an entire group of citizens who come from all walks of life, who include both Republicans and Democrats, who attend church, who pay taxes, who fight and die for their country, and who want the same basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as he enjoys as extremists, he reveals the truly deep-seated disdain he has for gays and lesbians.
Rep. Carson’s speech to local Democrats had nothing to do with the subject of same sex marriages. Yet that didn’t stop Mr. Croddy from raising the issue in his press release. He implied that Rep. Carson’s opposition to the constitutional ban on same sex marriages meant that she did not “want to protect our families”, and that she wanted to discard “thousands of years of tradition.” To suggest that a formal union between two loving people of the same sex is a threat to your’s or anyone else’s family is gay-baiting at its lowest common denominator.
As to your suggestion that the five Democratic councilors who voted against Proposal 68 were not equally criticized for their votes, that is simply not true. Advance Indiana and the GLBT community in general has been highly critical of those members, particularly Patrice Abdullah, who said he based his vote on his religious beliefs. Unlike you, however, none of those five accompanied their votes with hate-filled bigoted comments as you did in your press release. That is why you were singled out for criticism.
Advance Indiana is also very bothered by the fact that you would be dismissive of its editor, Gary R. Welsh, simply because he is originally from Illinois. He in fact was born in Terre Haute, Indiana and has lived in Indianapolis for the past 15 years, not that it should matter in the least bit. As Advance Indiana explored in earlier reporting of D.C. Stephenson’s and the KKK’s reign of terror over Indiana politics in the 1920s, nativist sentiment was one of the driving forces behind their bigoted “Americanization” agenda. Your dismissiveness of Advance Indiana’s editor because he is from Illinois originally and not born and raised here as you demonstrates that you think just like D.C. Stephenson and his KKK adherents in the 1920s.
I truly wish Mr. Croddy that I could believe you when you say “I have love in my heart and not bigotry”, but the words you chose to use in your press release and your reply letter to Advance Indiana's reporting belies that. For those of you interested, the full text of Mr. Croddy’s letter to the Indianapolis community is furnished below.
Dear Indianapolis Friends,
I believe the writer above has misstated my feelings on these matters. First, 5 Democrats on the City -County Council agree with me. To make it seem like I am extreme is kind of silly. The vote broke down 18 to 11 against ordinance 68-2005 -Democrats and Republicans together voted this ordinance down. I simply agree with City-County Councilors Patrice Abduallah(D),Sherron Franklin(D),Ron Gibson(D),Mary Moriarty Adams(D),Steve Talley(D) and the 13 out of 14 Republicans that voted this ordinance down. Do these five Democrats display hatred and gay bigotry? Maybe you should write more about them. Does Bob Croddy display hatred and gay bigotry? No -I don't think so. The fact is...I have only love in my heart for my fellow man/woman. I am no judge or jury on these matters. I have love in my heart for you not bigotry. I have read my press release several times. Nowhere do I read hatred or bigotry. The way I see it this urban Republican born and raised in Center Township has a good pulse of the people here in Marion County’s 7th. My family dates back close to 100 years in Center Township. I understand the people I come from just fine. My pulse seems to be in-line with thousands of Democrats in Marion County. I understand the man who wrote this article is from Illinois. I don’t know many people from Illinois. Again, I agree with the 5 Democrats City-County Councilors in Marion County but with only love in my heart for my fellow citizen.
Bob Croddy
2:18 AM
Monday, June 27, 2005
The Foolhardiness of the Supreme Court's Neutrality in Ten Commandment Cases
On the last day of its term, the Supreme Court handed down two separate anxiously awaited decisions involving the public display of the Ten Commandments on public property. To the dismay of those looking for the Court to enunciate a clear principle to guide us on future interpretations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the Court gave two entirely different results applying different principles to reach its end. As Justice Antonin Scalia aptly put it in his dissenting opinion to one of the cases, we have a "dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court" instead of judicial opinion "grounded in constitutionally applied principle." The absurdity of the Court's action in the two cases was evidenced by the witnessing of supporters on both sides of the issue declaring victory on the steps of the Supreme Court.
In the first case, McCreary County v. ACLU, the Court was confronted with the display of the Ten Commandments on the walls of the courthouses in two Kentucky counties, which displays were ordered by the respective legislative bodies of the two counties. Both the legislative directives and the ceremonies surrounding the display of the Ten Commandments evidenced a religious purpose for them. The Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that the display of the Ten Commandments in the Kentucky courthouses failed the test of "neutrality" the Court has enunciated in the past in the context of First Amendment Establishment Clause cases. According to the "neutrality" principle, the First Amendment "mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." The test used by the Court in determining "neutrality" in the McCreary case is the so-called Lemon test. This test was first established in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971. This case involved the use of state funds by the State of Pennsylvania to subsidize private, religious schools, which the Court struck down. In reaching its decision, the Court devised a 3-part test to determine a statute's constitutionality under the First Amendment: (1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) the principal effect of the statute must be one that neither advances religion nor inhibits religion; and (3) the statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. In a majority opinion written by Justice David Souter, the Court in McCreary, looking at the legislative history and circumstances surrounding the display of the Ten Commandments in the Kentucky courthouses, concluded that their purpose was for religious purposes and not secular purposes. The Court similarly ruled 25 years ago in striking down the placement of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky public classrooms in Stone v. Graham applying these same principles.
In the second case, Van Orden v. Perry, the Court was presented with a public display of the Ten Commandments on the lawn of the Texas State House. The display here was a gift from the Eagles, a group described as being "social, civic and patriotic", made 40 years ago to the State of Texas. The Eagles' purpose in making the gift was described as "shaping civic morality." The dedication ceremony for the display was presided over by two state legislators. In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that the display did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court, on the same day it decided McCreary and on the same matter of displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, refused to apply the Lemon test as it had in the McCreary case. The majority opinion dissed the Lemon test, even questioning its future. While acknowleging that the Ten Commandment are purely "religious", the Chief Justice opined that Moses was also a "lawgiver" in as much as he was a religious figure, and that the Ten Commandments have an "undeniable historical meaning." The Court reasoned that the display was far more "passive" in this case than was the display in the Stone case, that a person (including the plaintiff in this case) had to go out of his/her way to view the display, and that noone had complained of the display until 40 years after their original placement. The Court concluded that the display served a dual purpose, "partaking of both religion and government," and as such, did not violate the Establishment Clause. A single member of the Court, Justice Steven Breyer, switched his vote in Van Orden to uphold the public display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas State House. In his concurring opinion, Breyer said "a display that communicates not simply a religious message, but a secular message as well" does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The Court, in reaching two very different outcomes, on essentially the same matters has undermined its own credibility. Justice Souter in the majority opinion in McCreary lamented that the "Court lacks the comfort of categorical absolutes." Justice Scalia, however, got it right, if not on the ultimate outcome, that "[w]hat the Court means by this lovely euphemism is that sometimes the Court chooses to decide cases on the principle that government cannot favor religion, and sometimes it does not." The lack of a constitutionally grounded principle leads to the "dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court" as Scalia sharply explained. The only conclusion one can reach by the outcome in these two decisions is that one member, Justice Breyer, thought it not right that the Court have a single guiding principle to guide us in Establishment Clause cases. With the likely retirement in the near future of Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor, perhaps Justice Breyer did not want to risk inciting the "religious right" on the eve of future confirmation votes. Whatever his reason, his failure to take a principled position has left us all at the whim of five justices at any future point in time to make a decision that fits their current thinking. In soing doing, he has completely "discredited" what principles the Court had enunciated in the past in order to avoid the "foolhardiness" as Scalia suggested if the Court dared apply its Lemon test consistently.
In the first case, McCreary County v. ACLU, the Court was confronted with the display of the Ten Commandments on the walls of the courthouses in two Kentucky counties, which displays were ordered by the respective legislative bodies of the two counties. Both the legislative directives and the ceremonies surrounding the display of the Ten Commandments evidenced a religious purpose for them. The Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that the display of the Ten Commandments in the Kentucky courthouses failed the test of "neutrality" the Court has enunciated in the past in the context of First Amendment Establishment Clause cases. According to the "neutrality" principle, the First Amendment "mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." The test used by the Court in determining "neutrality" in the McCreary case is the so-called Lemon test. This test was first established in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971. This case involved the use of state funds by the State of Pennsylvania to subsidize private, religious schools, which the Court struck down. In reaching its decision, the Court devised a 3-part test to determine a statute's constitutionality under the First Amendment: (1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) the principal effect of the statute must be one that neither advances religion nor inhibits religion; and (3) the statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. In a majority opinion written by Justice David Souter, the Court in McCreary, looking at the legislative history and circumstances surrounding the display of the Ten Commandments in the Kentucky courthouses, concluded that their purpose was for religious purposes and not secular purposes. The Court similarly ruled 25 years ago in striking down the placement of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky public classrooms in Stone v. Graham applying these same principles.
In the second case, Van Orden v. Perry, the Court was presented with a public display of the Ten Commandments on the lawn of the Texas State House. The display here was a gift from the Eagles, a group described as being "social, civic and patriotic", made 40 years ago to the State of Texas. The Eagles' purpose in making the gift was described as "shaping civic morality." The dedication ceremony for the display was presided over by two state legislators. In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that the display did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court, on the same day it decided McCreary and on the same matter of displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, refused to apply the Lemon test as it had in the McCreary case. The majority opinion dissed the Lemon test, even questioning its future. While acknowleging that the Ten Commandment are purely "religious", the Chief Justice opined that Moses was also a "lawgiver" in as much as he was a religious figure, and that the Ten Commandments have an "undeniable historical meaning." The Court reasoned that the display was far more "passive" in this case than was the display in the Stone case, that a person (including the plaintiff in this case) had to go out of his/her way to view the display, and that noone had complained of the display until 40 years after their original placement. The Court concluded that the display served a dual purpose, "partaking of both religion and government," and as such, did not violate the Establishment Clause. A single member of the Court, Justice Steven Breyer, switched his vote in Van Orden to uphold the public display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas State House. In his concurring opinion, Breyer said "a display that communicates not simply a religious message, but a secular message as well" does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The Court, in reaching two very different outcomes, on essentially the same matters has undermined its own credibility. Justice Souter in the majority opinion in McCreary lamented that the "Court lacks the comfort of categorical absolutes." Justice Scalia, however, got it right, if not on the ultimate outcome, that "[w]hat the Court means by this lovely euphemism is that sometimes the Court chooses to decide cases on the principle that government cannot favor religion, and sometimes it does not." The lack of a constitutionally grounded principle leads to the "dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court" as Scalia sharply explained. The only conclusion one can reach by the outcome in these two decisions is that one member, Justice Breyer, thought it not right that the Court have a single guiding principle to guide us in Establishment Clause cases. With the likely retirement in the near future of Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor, perhaps Justice Breyer did not want to risk inciting the "religious right" on the eve of future confirmation votes. Whatever his reason, his failure to take a principled position has left us all at the whim of five justices at any future point in time to make a decision that fits their current thinking. In soing doing, he has completely "discredited" what principles the Court had enunciated in the past in order to avoid the "foolhardiness" as Scalia suggested if the Court dared apply its Lemon test consistently.
Indy HRO Proponents Need Your Help
Proponents of Proposal 68, the proposed human rights ordinance before the Indianapolis City-County Council, need your help. Some of the councilors who voted against Proposal 68 in April said they did so because they knew of no examples of any Indianapolis residents being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation or identity. Most notably, City-County Council President Steve Talley, who voted against the proposal, said he would reconsider his vote if it is demonstrated to him that discrimination has occurred in the past. I am posting an open letter to the community which explains to you how you can become more involved and, specifically, how you can communicate examples of discrimination with which you have experienced.
An open letter to the LGBT community and supporters:
Indianapolis City-County Councilors Jackie Nytes (D) and J. Scott Keller (R) are working diligently to pass a Human Rights Ordinance (HRO) this fall that includes sexual orientation and gender identity protections. But they cannot do it alone. They need our help. Four main ways you and the community can get involved have been identified:
Tell Your Story
If you have a story of discrimination or prejudice in housing, employment, education or other aspects of public life because of your sexual orientation or gender identity, let Jackie and Scott know! These stories are extremely important! Remember, most of the councilors who voted "NO" the last time were not convinced that LGBT discrimination actually exists in Marion County. We have to change that perception! They are also interested in knowing whether your company already has protections in place and whether or not the company enforces them. You do not have to share your name or address, just your story. In turn, these stories will be shared with the City-County Council to emphasize the need for anti-discrimination language in the Human Rights Ordinance. Without these stories, it will be difficult to justify the need for the HRO. Get your stories in today!Please visit GayIndy.org to email your stories to Jackie and Scott. Out Word Bound is also collecting letters. You can call them at 317-951-9100 or drop off your letters at 625 N. East Street in Indianapolis.
Attend a Town Hall Meeting
The Equal Opportunity Advisory Board (EOAB) will be holding a series of town hall meetings in late July and early August. Three meetings will be held in all, one on the north side, one downtown and one on the south side. The times, dates, and locations of these meetings will be shared as soon as they are announced. Marion County residents are needed who are willing to publicly share their LGBT discrimination experiences. These stories can also come from Marion County parents and friends who can testify to discrimination faced by their children and family members. The religious extremists who derailed the last HRO attempt will be there in force testifying as to why we do not need protection. It is vitally important that these meetings be well attended by the LGBT community and its supporters. Linda Perdue will be coordinating people who are willing to publicly testify. Please visit GayIndy.org and check the "Town Hall Meeting" box if you are willing to testify.
Meet with Your City-County Councilor
Members of the LGBT community as well as their families and friends are encouraged to meet with targeted City-County Councilors. These meetings would consist of 2-5 participants personally talking with councilors as to why the proposed changes to the HRO are necessary. Walter Botich and Bil Browning from IE Region 8 will coordinate these meetings. This could have a huge impact on the councilors vote this fall. You will not be alone at these meetings and advisors from a variety of groups are available to help you prepare! This is one of the most valuable tools we have as a community - don't let this opportunity to talk face-to-face with your representative to pass you by! PFLAG members are especially encouraged to respond. Please contact Walter and Bil through GayIndy.org to pinpoint your council district and to coordinate meeting times. Check the box marked "Meet with my councilor."
Be Ready to Contact your City-County Councilor
The first attempt to pass this HRO was thwarted by a flood of email from people who did not even live in Indiana. When the time comes, be ready to email or call your councilor to urge them to support the HRO. These messages do not have to be long and only have to state that you support the passage of the Human Rights Ordinance. This update to the current Human Rights Ordinance is extremely important to our community and Marion County as a whole. If you want these legal protections, then it is up to you. Your stories, attendance at town hall meetings, and face-to-face meetings with your councilors are all tremendously valuable. Stand up and be counted! Through education and better laws, we can create a community where all are treated fairly and diversity is embraced. Help make Indianapolis a better place for all citizens - regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
An open letter to the LGBT community and supporters:
Indianapolis City-County Councilors Jackie Nytes (D) and J. Scott Keller (R) are working diligently to pass a Human Rights Ordinance (HRO) this fall that includes sexual orientation and gender identity protections. But they cannot do it alone. They need our help. Four main ways you and the community can get involved have been identified:
Tell Your Story
If you have a story of discrimination or prejudice in housing, employment, education or other aspects of public life because of your sexual orientation or gender identity, let Jackie and Scott know! These stories are extremely important! Remember, most of the councilors who voted "NO" the last time were not convinced that LGBT discrimination actually exists in Marion County. We have to change that perception! They are also interested in knowing whether your company already has protections in place and whether or not the company enforces them. You do not have to share your name or address, just your story. In turn, these stories will be shared with the City-County Council to emphasize the need for anti-discrimination language in the Human Rights Ordinance. Without these stories, it will be difficult to justify the need for the HRO. Get your stories in today!Please visit GayIndy.org to email your stories to Jackie and Scott. Out Word Bound is also collecting letters. You can call them at 317-951-9100 or drop off your letters at 625 N. East Street in Indianapolis.
Attend a Town Hall Meeting
The Equal Opportunity Advisory Board (EOAB) will be holding a series of town hall meetings in late July and early August. Three meetings will be held in all, one on the north side, one downtown and one on the south side. The times, dates, and locations of these meetings will be shared as soon as they are announced. Marion County residents are needed who are willing to publicly share their LGBT discrimination experiences. These stories can also come from Marion County parents and friends who can testify to discrimination faced by their children and family members. The religious extremists who derailed the last HRO attempt will be there in force testifying as to why we do not need protection. It is vitally important that these meetings be well attended by the LGBT community and its supporters. Linda Perdue will be coordinating people who are willing to publicly testify. Please visit GayIndy.org and check the "Town Hall Meeting" box if you are willing to testify.
Meet with Your City-County Councilor
Members of the LGBT community as well as their families and friends are encouraged to meet with targeted City-County Councilors. These meetings would consist of 2-5 participants personally talking with councilors as to why the proposed changes to the HRO are necessary. Walter Botich and Bil Browning from IE Region 8 will coordinate these meetings. This could have a huge impact on the councilors vote this fall. You will not be alone at these meetings and advisors from a variety of groups are available to help you prepare! This is one of the most valuable tools we have as a community - don't let this opportunity to talk face-to-face with your representative to pass you by! PFLAG members are especially encouraged to respond. Please contact Walter and Bil through GayIndy.org to pinpoint your council district and to coordinate meeting times. Check the box marked "Meet with my councilor."
Be Ready to Contact your City-County Councilor
The first attempt to pass this HRO was thwarted by a flood of email from people who did not even live in Indiana. When the time comes, be ready to email or call your councilor to urge them to support the HRO. These messages do not have to be long and only have to state that you support the passage of the Human Rights Ordinance. This update to the current Human Rights Ordinance is extremely important to our community and Marion County as a whole. If you want these legal protections, then it is up to you. Your stories, attendance at town hall meetings, and face-to-face meetings with your councilors are all tremendously valuable. Stand up and be counted! Through education and better laws, we can create a community where all are treated fairly and diversity is embraced. Help make Indianapolis a better place for all citizens - regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Poll Finds Illinois Voters Overwhelmingly Oppose Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriages
A poll recently commissioned by Equality Illinois to benchmark voter attitudes towards gay and lesbian citizens in Illinois found that on 9 out of 10 issues surveyed, Illinoisans supported granting equal rights to gays and lesbians. The survey found that while the Land of Lincoln was not ready to support gay marriages, an overwhelming majority of its citizens were opposed to amending either the U.S. or Illinois constitutions to ban gay marriages. The poll, which was commissioned by the Glengariff Group of Chicago, was conducted between June 6 and June 8, 2005 and surveyed the views of 600 random, digital dial callers with a plus or minus margin of error of 4%.
The survey found that 38% support gay marriage while 49% oppose gay marriage. This split on gay marriage the poll found was the only issue on which Illinois voters do not support equal rights for gays and lesbians according to the poll. By a margin of 53% to 36%, Illinois voters favored allowing civil unions between gays and lesbians. The poll also found public support on a variety of issues, including hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, health benefits for government employees gay partners, filing joint tax returns, social security/pension rights and adoption rights. More importantly, the poll found that Illinois voters by a margin of 70% to 23% opposed amending the U.S. constitution, and by a margin of 67% to 27% opposed amending the state constitution, to ban gay marriages. Among those surveyed the poll found that 56% of Illinois voters say they know a friend or family member who is gay or lesbian. Those persons knowing a gay or lesbian friend or family member supported gay and lesbian rights by a margin of 24% over those who did not know a friend or family member who was gay or lesbian.
If you remove Chicago from Illinois, you have a state that is very similar demographically and culturally to the State of Indiana. While the poll found the strongest support for gay rights in the City of Chicago, the central and southern parts of the state were nearly as equally opposed to amending the U.S. or Illinois constitutions to ban gay marriages. For example, there was opposition to an amendment to the U.S. constitution among central Illinois voters by a margin of 70% to 24%, and among southern Illinois voters by a margin of 58% to 35%. That compares to a margin of 74% to 19% of Chicago voters who oppose a U.S. constitutional amendment. Very similar results were found for the strong opposition to a state constitutional amendment. While Democrats were more likely to oppose a constitutional amendment than Republicans, the poll found that a clear majority of Republicans also opposed a constitutional amendment.
Among other issues, the poll found the greatest public support for hospital visitation rights and the least public support for adoption results. The poll did not include the issue of discrimination in employment and housing. The Illinois General Assembly approved and Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyevich signed a new law in January which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The survey results showed support on the following issues as follows:
Hospital visitation rights (77%-17%)
Inheritance rights (61%-30%)
Health benefits for partners of government employees (56%-35%)
Filing of joint tax returns (55%-38%)
Inheritance benefits for social security and pensions (54%-39%)
Adoption rights (48%-44%)
Advance Indiana does not believe such a comprehensive poll on gay and lesbian civil rights has been taken in the State of Indiana. However, Advance Indiana would not be surprised to see similar numbers in a poll taken here. Most importantly, it shows very strong public support for providing equal rights to gays and lesbians on a whole host of issues, laying aside the issue of gay marriage. It should be noted that the pollster conducting the Illinois poll, Glengariff Group, is headed by a Republican. Richard Czuba, the president of Glengariff Group, formerly worked for the Michigan Republican Party and former Governor John Engler. He has conducted political polls for candidates running for president, Congress, statewide and state legislative races.
The survey found that 38% support gay marriage while 49% oppose gay marriage. This split on gay marriage the poll found was the only issue on which Illinois voters do not support equal rights for gays and lesbians according to the poll. By a margin of 53% to 36%, Illinois voters favored allowing civil unions between gays and lesbians. The poll also found public support on a variety of issues, including hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, health benefits for government employees gay partners, filing joint tax returns, social security/pension rights and adoption rights. More importantly, the poll found that Illinois voters by a margin of 70% to 23% opposed amending the U.S. constitution, and by a margin of 67% to 27% opposed amending the state constitution, to ban gay marriages. Among those surveyed the poll found that 56% of Illinois voters say they know a friend or family member who is gay or lesbian. Those persons knowing a gay or lesbian friend or family member supported gay and lesbian rights by a margin of 24% over those who did not know a friend or family member who was gay or lesbian.
If you remove Chicago from Illinois, you have a state that is very similar demographically and culturally to the State of Indiana. While the poll found the strongest support for gay rights in the City of Chicago, the central and southern parts of the state were nearly as equally opposed to amending the U.S. or Illinois constitutions to ban gay marriages. For example, there was opposition to an amendment to the U.S. constitution among central Illinois voters by a margin of 70% to 24%, and among southern Illinois voters by a margin of 58% to 35%. That compares to a margin of 74% to 19% of Chicago voters who oppose a U.S. constitutional amendment. Very similar results were found for the strong opposition to a state constitutional amendment. While Democrats were more likely to oppose a constitutional amendment than Republicans, the poll found that a clear majority of Republicans also opposed a constitutional amendment.
Among other issues, the poll found the greatest public support for hospital visitation rights and the least public support for adoption results. The poll did not include the issue of discrimination in employment and housing. The Illinois General Assembly approved and Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyevich signed a new law in January which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The survey results showed support on the following issues as follows:
Hospital visitation rights (77%-17%)
Inheritance rights (61%-30%)
Health benefits for partners of government employees (56%-35%)
Filing of joint tax returns (55%-38%)
Inheritance benefits for social security and pensions (54%-39%)
Adoption rights (48%-44%)
Advance Indiana does not believe such a comprehensive poll on gay and lesbian civil rights has been taken in the State of Indiana. However, Advance Indiana would not be surprised to see similar numbers in a poll taken here. Most importantly, it shows very strong public support for providing equal rights to gays and lesbians on a whole host of issues, laying aside the issue of gay marriage. It should be noted that the pollster conducting the Illinois poll, Glengariff Group, is headed by a Republican. Richard Czuba, the president of Glengariff Group, formerly worked for the Michigan Republican Party and former Governor John Engler. He has conducted political polls for candidates running for president, Congress, statewide and state legislative races.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Howey Explores GOP Rift With Evangelical Christians: Reports on Miller's Self-Dealing
State House political reporter Brian Howey took a closer look in this week’s edition of the Howey Political Report at the developing rift in the Indiana Republican Party between moderates led by Governor Mitch Daniels and conservative, Christian fundamentalists like House Speaker Brian Bosma, Micah Clark and Eric Miller. As an example of the party's division, Howey focused on Clark’s angry reaction to Governor Daniel’s EEO Policy of non-discrimination towards state employees on the basis of sexual orientation and identity as we have reported at length here at Advance Indiana. “His comment to the Indianapolis Star-- ‘I don’t believe in the big tent. I don’t believe you get to be that big by offending a large portion of your base'—exposed a fissure within the Republican Party,” reported Howey. Howey observed, “It is a party where the evangelical Christian right can turn out between 25 and 32 percent of a primary vote for people such as John R. Price in the 1988 U.S. Senate race or Eric Miller in the 2004 governor’s race.” “That leaves at least two-thirds of the Republican Party in the moderate column,” Howey commented.
Howey opines that modern Indiana Republicans have focused on: “keep government out of our private lives; of efficient, limited government; of low taxes.” Clark, who heads the non-profit American Family Association of Indiana , is the first Indiana Republican to openly advocate against the “big tent” that Ronald Reagan first talked about more than three decades ago according to Howey. Howey says, “It is further evidence that the band of Hoosier Republicanism is growing wider, stretching far, far to the right.” Howey continues, “But since the evangelical right took over the Indiana House leadership with the ascension of Brian Bosma and State Representative Eric Turner, Republicans are a conflicted party even as they control the executive and legislative branches of government,” The story cites Bosma’s former chief of staff, Don Blinzinger, as attributing the sharp move to the right in the House leadership when Bosma and Turner replaced moderates Paul Mannweiler and John Keeler. Bosma hired an Iowa campaign operative, Steve Grubbs, who devised gay-bashing campaign tactics that helped elect State Representatives Bill Davis, Billy Bright, Bruce Borders and Troy Woodruff in 2004 to give Republicans their slim majority. Blinzinger is quoted as saying, “What I saw him do beginning in 2000 and even more so in 2004 was to play off the national Republican politics.” That paved the way for the “evangelical right” to “push for the marriage amendment,” Howey said. Blinzinger predicted that “an increased number of Republicans will have primary opponents”, and he “see[s] the Christian right becoming even more strident.”
State Representative Luke Messer, who is also the Indiana Republican Party’s executive director, insists that the party is still “committed to the big tent” according to the report. However, Messer says, “Most Hoosiers are opposed to gay marriage, but they believe there should be certain legal protections.” Messer, unfortunately, did not offer Howey any specifics on what those “certain legal protections” should be. Howey noted that other Republicans are fighting back against the takeover of the Indiana Republicans by the evangelical Republicans. He discussed the formation of a new group of moderate Republicans called “First Republicans,” which is being spear-headed by Indianapolis attorney Syd Steele, who ironically works for House Speaker Brian Bosma’s law firm. Close Daniel’s confident Bill Oesterle, who has spoken out publicly to Indiana Republicans about the need to be more tolerant and inclusive of the GLBT community says he’s not engaged in an “escalation” to the resistance Daniels is getting from Micah Clark and Eric Miller according to the report. Oesterle said, “My comments to our spring dinner were a fact. Republicans are going to be conscious of differing views. Micah Clark is operating at the fringes. Most people don’t believe in a party that is not inclusive.” Howey also quotes Advance Indiana editor Gary R. Welsh, who started Advance Indiana blog site in response to the hate and bigotry Christian fundamentalists like Miller and Clark have been directing at the GLBT community. “You can replace all the references to gays with blacks and women and see how all of them were tied to Christian [fundamentalist] beliefs,” Welsh said. “The Party of Lincoln was always on the right side of civil rights.”
Howey, who describes Governor Daniels as a moderate, aptly pointed out “[w]hat the Micah Clarks and Eric Millers don’t understand is that the more they beat up on Governor Daniels, the more friends he is likely to make in the middle, especially with the ‘late deciding women’ who detest intolerance.” Howey concluded, “Miller’s Advance America can deliver 2,000 people for rallies at the State House or pump out a burst of e-mails[,][b]ut they don’t win elections; they enforce litmus tests.” After Howey's report Clark stepped up his criticism of Daniels even more. Clark, whose reaction to Daniel's EEO Policy has been nothing short of hysteria, is now telling his followers that Daniel's "radical" policy is even opposed by Congressman Barney Frank, a gay Democrat from Massuchusets.
This week’s Howey Political Report also ran excerpts from Advance Indiana's previous reporting on how Eric Miller has enriched himself through blatant self-dealing while serving as executive director of Advance America. Judging by the internet traffic to Advance Indiana over the past 24 hours, it is generating a lot of interest. The Howey Political Report is subscribed to by state officeholders, legislators, lobbyists and political enthusiasts across the state of Indiana.
Howey opines that modern Indiana Republicans have focused on: “keep government out of our private lives; of efficient, limited government; of low taxes.” Clark, who heads the non-profit American Family Association of Indiana , is the first Indiana Republican to openly advocate against the “big tent” that Ronald Reagan first talked about more than three decades ago according to Howey. Howey says, “It is further evidence that the band of Hoosier Republicanism is growing wider, stretching far, far to the right.” Howey continues, “But since the evangelical right took over the Indiana House leadership with the ascension of Brian Bosma and State Representative Eric Turner, Republicans are a conflicted party even as they control the executive and legislative branches of government,” The story cites Bosma’s former chief of staff, Don Blinzinger, as attributing the sharp move to the right in the House leadership when Bosma and Turner replaced moderates Paul Mannweiler and John Keeler. Bosma hired an Iowa campaign operative, Steve Grubbs, who devised gay-bashing campaign tactics that helped elect State Representatives Bill Davis, Billy Bright, Bruce Borders and Troy Woodruff in 2004 to give Republicans their slim majority. Blinzinger is quoted as saying, “What I saw him do beginning in 2000 and even more so in 2004 was to play off the national Republican politics.” That paved the way for the “evangelical right” to “push for the marriage amendment,” Howey said. Blinzinger predicted that “an increased number of Republicans will have primary opponents”, and he “see[s] the Christian right becoming even more strident.”
State Representative Luke Messer, who is also the Indiana Republican Party’s executive director, insists that the party is still “committed to the big tent” according to the report. However, Messer says, “Most Hoosiers are opposed to gay marriage, but they believe there should be certain legal protections.” Messer, unfortunately, did not offer Howey any specifics on what those “certain legal protections” should be. Howey noted that other Republicans are fighting back against the takeover of the Indiana Republicans by the evangelical Republicans. He discussed the formation of a new group of moderate Republicans called “First Republicans,” which is being spear-headed by Indianapolis attorney Syd Steele, who ironically works for House Speaker Brian Bosma’s law firm. Close Daniel’s confident Bill Oesterle, who has spoken out publicly to Indiana Republicans about the need to be more tolerant and inclusive of the GLBT community says he’s not engaged in an “escalation” to the resistance Daniels is getting from Micah Clark and Eric Miller according to the report. Oesterle said, “My comments to our spring dinner were a fact. Republicans are going to be conscious of differing views. Micah Clark is operating at the fringes. Most people don’t believe in a party that is not inclusive.” Howey also quotes Advance Indiana editor Gary R. Welsh, who started Advance Indiana blog site in response to the hate and bigotry Christian fundamentalists like Miller and Clark have been directing at the GLBT community. “You can replace all the references to gays with blacks and women and see how all of them were tied to Christian [fundamentalist] beliefs,” Welsh said. “The Party of Lincoln was always on the right side of civil rights.”
Howey, who describes Governor Daniels as a moderate, aptly pointed out “[w]hat the Micah Clarks and Eric Millers don’t understand is that the more they beat up on Governor Daniels, the more friends he is likely to make in the middle, especially with the ‘late deciding women’ who detest intolerance.” Howey concluded, “Miller’s Advance America can deliver 2,000 people for rallies at the State House or pump out a burst of e-mails[,][b]ut they don’t win elections; they enforce litmus tests.” After Howey's report Clark stepped up his criticism of Daniels even more. Clark, whose reaction to Daniel's EEO Policy has been nothing short of hysteria, is now telling his followers that Daniel's "radical" policy is even opposed by Congressman Barney Frank, a gay Democrat from Massuchusets.
This week’s Howey Political Report also ran excerpts from Advance Indiana's previous reporting on how Eric Miller has enriched himself through blatant self-dealing while serving as executive director of Advance America. Judging by the internet traffic to Advance Indiana over the past 24 hours, it is generating a lot of interest. The Howey Political Report is subscribed to by state officeholders, legislators, lobbyists and political enthusiasts across the state of Indiana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)