Indiana Equality just released an action alert that the Marriage Discrimination Bill was officially introduced during special legislative session on Tuesday (yesterday),
Proponents Fundraise at the Expense of Hoosier Taxpayers
The Marriage Discrimination Amendment - House Joint Resolution 3 - was officially introduced on Tuesday to the 2009 Special Session of the Indiana General Assembly. Authored by State Representatives Eric Turner (Republican - Marion) and David Cheatham (Democrat - North Vernon), HJR-3 has been assigned to the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee.
Indiana Equality goes on to say
This special legislative session has been called with one purpose: to develop a new state budget. The Indiana Family Institute (IFI), a chief proponent of the Marriage Discrimination Amendment, acknowledges in a recent e-mail the purpose of the special session - adoption of a state budget - and the low probability of HJR-3 passage. One can only conclude that IFI is taking this opportunity to fundraise - and at the expense of Hoosier taxpayers.
This attempt to put a discriminatory proposal in front of the real needs of Indiana citizens demonstrates IFI lack of understanding about our state's priorities. Indiana Equality Action calls on our elected officials to focus on the matter at hand: Indiana's state budget.
You won't find this action alert easily on Indiana Equality's website so save time and follow this link.
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project | Indiana by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
1 Comment
« Traditional Marriage Threat Alert - Brownsburg, Indiana | Home | Abdul will commemorate Stonewall anniversary with me »
Donna, ask 100 people, be they legislators, media folks, or just ordinary Hoosier citizens if they think HJR3 is simply a renumbered SJR7, the amendment that got through the legislature on the first pass in 2005, but hasn't made it though again since when people woke up and read its horribly ambiguous second sentence. Betcha' 98 of them will nod their head yes.
Sadly, as bad as SJR7 was, HJR3, a supposedly minor rewording to "clarify" things, is even worse. At least with SJR7 sponsors insisted they were only interested in stopping "unelected activist judges". But they assured us that if the General Assembly wanted to, it remained free even to enact full civil unions.
In a sneaky move they don't want to discuss the reason for, their new version strips the legislature of that ability. So much for letting one's elected legislators reflect their changing attitudes.
The more people realize this major reversal of position, the more the sponsors will exposed for some pretty shoddy tactics.
Don Sherfick | June 25, 2009 5:54 PM
Reply to this comment