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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT