Same-sex couples fear losing domestic benefits

Posted on March 30, 2007
Filed Under Indiana | Leave a Comment

Ball State University interior designer Dan Stephenson said when his mother died four years ago, his partner had to use vacation days to attend the funeral, a benefit automatically given to married couples.

Since then, the university passed a regulation letting same-sex domestic partners take time off for a death in the family. This, and other employee benefits for same-sex partners, could be lost if Indiana passes an amendment banning same-sex marriage, Stephenson said.

State senators will vote on whether to place Senate Joint Resolution No. 7 on the ballot in 2008. According to the bill, a legal marriage is “only the union of one man and one woman.”

Stephenson said the amendment will ostracize the gay community if it passes. “My partner and I have been together for almost 20 years, and we’ve paid the same taxes as everybody else,” he said, “but we’re being treated as second-class citizens. I would consider moving to a state where they wouldn’t treat me that way.”

Advance America Founder Eric Miller said his organization is working to pass SJR 7 and protect traditional marriages. “I believe it is in the best interest for the children and the moral foundation of our state and nation to have marriage only between one man and one woman,” he said. “We believe this will benefit the state of Indiana by continuing to define marriage as it has historically been defined, and this is best for society.”
Advance America is also against same-sex civil unions, Miller said. “Civil union is nothing more than marriage with a different name,” he said.

Those speaking out against the bill are worried about potential side effects it could have on the state’s society and economy.

Indiana Equality spokesperson Jerame Davis said if the amendment is passed it will be almost impossible to overturn. “The way the amendment is written, even if the legislators somewhere down the road wanted to pass a law that is positive toward same-sex couples, this would prevent that,” he said. “Imagine how hard it would be to pass another amendment to change this amendment.” Read more….

Source: DN Online

Drugmaker: bill would hurt worker recruitment

Posted on March 28, 2007
Filed Under Indiana | Leave a Comment

Indianapolis-based drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. is telling lawmakers that it opposes a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Indiana, saying it could negatively impact employee recruitment.

In a letter to state House Speaker Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, Lilly said the proposal sends an unwelcoming signal to current and future employees by making Indiana appear intolerant. He also said employees are concerned that the plan might endanger current domestic partner benefits. 

The measure’s sponsors responded by saying that Lilly doesn’t know what it is talking about, 6News’ Norman Cox reported.

State Rep. Eric Turner, R-Gas City, said that when companies testified against the bill during an earlier legislative committee meeting, he asked them whether they could identify any state that had to eliminate domestic partnership benefits after passing a constitutional same-sex marriage ban. “They could not identify one. In fact, they said there were none,” Turner said. Read more….

Source: The Indy Channel

Dungy affirms opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’

Posted on March 21, 2007
Filed Under Indiana | Leave a Comment

Tony DungyTony Dungy, the Christian coach of this year’s Super Bowl champions, clearly laid out his position against same-sex “marriage” Tuesday night.

At the Indiana Family Institute (IFI)’s banquet, the Indianapolis Colts coach agreed with IFI’s position of defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman. “I appreciate the stance they’re taking,” he said, according to the Indianapolis Star, “and I embrace that stance.”

Before the awards dinner, several pro-homosexual and gay rights groups had criticized Dungy for attending the event. IFI, which has affiliations with Focus on the Family, has been a major voice in supporting a marriage amendment that is currently in the Indiana House, legally defining marriage as one man and one woman. The gay rights groups felt the professional football coach should stay away from all politics.

“We’re not anti-anything else,” explained Dungy, according to USA Today. “We’re not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we’re trying to promote the family – family values the Lord’s way.”

During his speech, the night’s honoree said he was not ashamed to be at the event.
“IFI is saying what the Lord says,” explained Dungy, according to USA Today. “You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be. I’m on the Lord’s side.”

“It is unfortunate that coach Dungy has chosen to align himself with the Indiana Family Institute,” expressed Bil Browning, managing editor of a blog that focuses on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues in Indiana, according to the Indianapolis Star. “The Colts were supported this season by all of their fans – gay and straight.”

The coach’s football franchise had expressed their neutrality on the issue before the awards ceremony. “Coach Dungy’s feelings on the importance of marriage and family are well known,” a Colts’ statement said. “He, of course, is free to speak to any group he wishes. The club does not take positions in political issues in which it is not directly involved. The Colts do not endorse any political or religious position taken by any group that any Colts employee decides to speak or lend his or her name to.”

Dungy has received numerous accolades over the past years. Among them, he was notably the first black person to win a Super Bowl this past February. He testified the victory as having been achieved “the Lord’s way.”

Source: Christian Post

Fate of same-sex marriage ban uncertain in Indiana House

Posted on March 21, 2007
Filed Under Indiana | Leave a Comment

Backers and opponents of a proposed state constitutional ban on gay marriage presented more than three hours of testimony before a House committee Wednesday, but no vote was taken and its prospects for advancing were uncertain.

Democratic Rep. Scott Pelath of Michigan City, chairman of the House Rules Committee, said the panel’s members “need time to meditate on this over the weekend” to determine the next step. That could include voting on the amendment without changes, or voting first to remove a provision that critics say could have unintended consequences on other laws or domestic partner benefits some employers provide to unmarried couples. Proponents have said that if any of the language is changed, it would restart the lengthy amendment process.

Pelath said it may be possible to remove a part of the proposed amendment and still have another part continue on course, but said the question needed more analysis.

Amending Indiana’s constitution requires a resolution to pass consecutive, separately elected General Assemblies and then be approved in a statewide vote. The Legislature passed the proposal in 2005, so if it is approved this year or in 2008, it could appear on the November 2008 ballot.

The Senate already has approved the proposal again this year.

The proposed amendment has two sections. The first states that marriage in Indiana is solely the union of one man and one woman. The second provision includes a phrase that says state law “may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” Read more….

Source: Journal & Courier

Indiana senate approves same sex marriage ban

Posted on February 13, 2007
Filed Under Indiana | Leave a Comment

The state senate gave its approval to a ban on gay marriage monday afternoon. The senate voted 39 to 10 to send the marriage amendment on to the Indiana House of Representatives. The debate in the state senate was brief, just two senators took part.

If the measure passes the Indiana House without changes, there will be a statewide referendum on the proposal that was introduced two years ago after same sex couples married in Massachusetts.

“For the first time since the enactment of the constitution of 1851 we now seek to amend it to deprive rights to a known class of citizens,” said senator Tim Lanane, (D) Anderson. “The proposition that same sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage, it seems to me just makes no sense at all and, in particular, personally to me, the proposition is laughable.”

“But we have always regulated marriage on things like age, familial relationships, gender. This is not new,” said senator Brandt Hershman, (R) Monticello. “The decision before us today is simply, do you trust the citizens of the state of Indiana to decide the future of one of the most fundamental building blocks of our society?”

Source: Wish TV

Recently


Categories


Archives

free hit counter script