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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT