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.


  • 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

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.