ILNews

Bosma moves HJR3 to new committee, citing need to vote

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Speaker of the House of Representatives Brian Bosma Tuesday moved House Joint Resolution 3, which would ban same-sex marriage through Indiana’s Constitution, and related House Bill 1153 from the House Judiciary Committee to the Elections and Apportionment Committee. The move led Democrats to accuse the speaker of “changing the rules in the middle of the game.”

Bosma said he moved the legislation due to the desire of Republicans to get it to the House floor for a vote. HJR 3 and HB 1153 were heard last week in the Judiciary Committee. Committee chairman Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, ended the hours-long hearing by announcing the members would not be voting so they could weigh the testimony they had heard.

Bosma said Steuerwald told him he wasn’t sure if the amendment would pass the committee.

Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, introduced HJR 3, the marriage amendment which bans same-sex unions, and his companion legislation, House Bill 1153, which serves to explain the Legislature’s intent primarily behind the controversial second sentence of the proposed constitutional provision.

Senate Democrat Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, said in a statement after Bosma made the change, “Instead of letting hours of testimony and the democratic process play out, the Speaker of the House has decided to start the clock over. Sometimes the legislative process does not garner the expected result, but that does not mean one gets to change the rules in the middle of the game.

“Those who spent hours testifying before the House Judiciary Committee will now have to take additional leave from their workplaces and daily routines to plead their case before an entirely new committee. This is a disservice to those who have taken time to be a part of the democratic process and continues to prevent us from focusing on the real issues that Hoosier families expect us to address.”

When Bosma announced his agenda for the 2014 legislative session, he said the same-sex marriage amendment was not one of his priorities, but he would like the amendment to go before voters.

If the proposed amendment is passed by both the Indiana House and Senate this session, the measure will appear on the November ballot.

The House Elections and Apportionment Committee meets Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. to discuss HJR3 and HB 1153. These are the only bills on the committee’s schedule.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Harming the GOP
    HJR-3 is harming the image of the State of Indiana and of the Republican Party.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT