Comments on Advance Indiana™: Star Features Faceoff On SJR-7

To paraphrase the speech of a wise Texas legislato...

2007-03-04T20:17:00.000-05:00

To paraphrase the speech of a wise Texas legislator:

Here's what SJR7 does not do: It does not give one Indiana citizen meaningful tax relief. It does not reform or fully fund our education system. It does not restore one child to Indiana's Children's Health Insurance Program. It does not put one dime into raising Hoosier's access to health care. It does not protect one elderly person. I does not save from harm one mentally or physically challenged person in the state. It won’t result in the adoption of one more kid. In fact, it does not even do anything to protect one marriage.

Moreover, SJR7 doesn’t do one thing to generate bio-tech discoveries, initiate patents or inventions, generate manufacturing opportunities, create markets or wealth, put more money in people’s pockets, increase investor return, or make the state more attractive for the purpose of locating a business.

The net result of SJR7 is to make Indiana a great deal less desirable to talented individuals and progressive companies who rely upon creative business talent (regardless of who they sleep with)to generate income and profit producing innovations. The whole idea is really a very, very bad proposition for business.

AdvanceIndiana, you've pointed this out in prior postings. I wish more people had been paying attention.

I can't believe that our Governor, whose campaign promise was to increase the personal income of every citizen of the state, can stand by and allow his economic program (albeit struggling) to be undermined by the "ad hominem attacks and inflammatory tactics of vocal, activist detractors" such as Smith, Miller, & Bopp.

In all the rhretoric spouted by the proponents of SJR7, there is an appallling lack of attention paid to the economic consequences of the resolution. Hopefully, some members of Indiana's House of Representatives will see fit to look into the economics of the resolution.

Mitch, if you read this blog, please remember that you kicked Miller's ass up between his shoulder blades. Don't sit on the sidelines and let Smith, Miller and Bopp take the game away from you. Intellectually, it's not worthy of you.

David Johnson, as leader of Bio-Crossroads, why aren't you saying that SJR7 is bad for business. When you were at B&D you wouldn't let your firm enact such a boneheaded, anti-economic policy.

Jiske, McRobbie - did you see this article by Ketzenberger this morning, "IU, Purdue outclassed on patent revenue -- for now". Are you content to stay silent and let us be outpaced by the states who get the economics of it all. Or, are you worried you wont' get your next building.

Cummins, Lilly get in the game. This hurts you too - and you know it.

Three things about the articles stood out to me:1)...

2007-03-04T16:53:00.000-05:00

Three things about the articles stood out to me:

1) While some in the GLBT community have tried in recent weeks to focus on the 2nd sentence, while also suggesting that the marriage issue in the 1st sentence was not as big a problem, Chris Douglas was quite honest in talking mostly about the marriage issue. While you and I completely disagree on this issue, thank you Chris for being honest.

2) Another argument made by the GLBT community is that the amendment is not needed because state law already defines marriage. And yet, Chris Douglas argues that denying marriage between same-sex couples is unconstitutional. If he is correct, then a consitutional amendment is absolutely necessary because the law which the GLBT community points to should, apparently, be overturned, according to Chris's argument. Indeed, that's the whole reason these constitutional amendments are so popular right now.

3) Unfortunately, Chris failed again to describe how this Constitutional amendment would deny the rights of anyone to get married. You can still get married. You just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course, that's what "marriage" has always entailed. So what Chris is really arguing is that some set of people, like the courts, ought to have the right to change definitions of common words. Meanwhile, there isn't now and there won't be after this amendment passes, a single person in this entire state who will be forbidden from getting married.

Anonymous: The Star didn't quote the text itself. ...

2007-03-04T15:12:00.000-05:00

Anonymous: The Star didn't quote the text itself. They did an almost identical paraphrase that ended up leaving out the words "This Constitution". Yes, a half-effort in that no reporters seem serious into digging into the "interpretation" claims and background of what Hershman and others are merely proclaiming as settled matters because of "legal expert" opinion. In that sense, a "half-effort" as Anonymous says.

I already threw the paper away...but correct me if...

2007-03-04T14:45:00.000-05:00

I already threw the paper away...but correct me if I'm wrong:

I read this page twice. I didn't see the exact wording of the proposed Amendment anywhere on the page.

If so, it's typical Star half-effort.

Your comments are right on the mark in almost all ...

2007-03-04T14:39:00.000-05:00

Your comments are right on the mark in almost all ways, but I would respectfully disagree with your own respectful disagreement with Chris's comment that "The proposed language contains undefined terms, is vague, and even its authors are at odds over what it means or will do." The term "legal incidents of marriage" is far from defined, and the term "shall not be construed" itself raises a host of questions about judicial versus legislative authority. The comment concerning the divergence of views of the authors stems from the fact that SJR-7 is was a cut and paste job from the Federal Marriage Amendment, and its authors and sponsors, one of whom was Notre Dame Law Professor Gerald V. Bradley, who Brant Hershman says helped him compose SJR-7. Items in the New York Times, Washington Post, and in the blogs in 2004 talk about a great deal if disagreement over the language within the conservative authoring community. More about this is going to be surfacing in the next few days. While it may serve both proponents and opponents to claim the language is perfectly clear (good or bad), the question remains as to whether, if there is any reasonable doubt what the language means, it ought not go go into our Indiana Constitution.