Howey: "The voters will not see the constitutional marriage amendment on the Indiana ballot until 2016, if ever."

The politician Silent Ron isn't saying much.

In which we finally hear Silent Ron's side of the HJR story -- except he says absolutely nothing at all.

But the journalist Brian Howey says it all, for the record: "The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees “equal protection” of all citizens in all states under the law. This will be at the crux of future debates either in the courtroom or on the ballot."

While you wait for Silent Ron to unmuzzle himself, read the whole story here:

Brian Howey: Lessons from the marriage amendment

INDIANAPOLIS - The voters will not see the constitutional marriage amendment on the Indiana ballot until 2016, if ever.

For much of the past two months, House Joint Resolution 3 has dominated legislative and media attention at a time when Indiana's jobless rate is north of 6 percent, we have a methamphetamine epidemic (and in some places, heroin), our health metrics are trending south, and we are potentially leaving more than $10 billion in federal Medicaid money that you taxpayers have already contributed on the table. We have so much more work to do.

So, what are the lessons of HJR-3?

In which we finally hear Silent Ron's side of the HJR story -- except he says absolutely nothing at all.

In the run-up to the Indiana Senate's vote on HJR-3, Ron Grooms refrained from all social media inquiries prior to infamously adding his name to the list of "yea" votes for the Hoosier Stain. Rest assured; it wasn't just social media on my part. I wrote him privately, and my e-mail also was ignored. Still has been, to this very moment.

Following is a Facebook thread ensuing after a blog post share, beginning on February 18, and concluding (so far) yesterday. In it, Ron Grooms finally offers a tepid reply.

Of course, it's no reply at all.

Now he instructs me to phone him, presumably to listen as the same tripe is recycled, and the same evasions repeated aloud. He might phone me, as my number as there on my FB page for the entire world to see, but no matter, for you see, I'm a written word kind of guy. Am I judgmental this way? Of course I am. Words matter, and the written word matters. Listing various public meetings attended isn't exactly exculpatory, is it? Universals are what matter in this instance. Explain them in writing, or not at all. Oratory disappears. Words on the page remain.

C'mon, Ron. Take pen in hand, and explain your collusion with cowardly discrimination. Describe how it jibes with liberty, justice, economic development and those other hoary bromides you and your brethren toss out without ever thinking. Gimme some meat here, Ron ... and not over the phone, thanks.

Write. It. Down.

---

It would be revealing to hear Silent Senator Ron Grooms's side of the pro-HJR-3 story. What high personal principle is involved in aligning with the anti-human rights bash mob? Electoral considerations only? Is economic development pursued by depriving talented citizens of inalienable rights? Ron, are you going to say anything at all, anytime soon?

RW
I have never heard him say anything of substance before.
February 18 at 8:14am · Like

JG
As unfortunate as it is that Grooms has turned out to be the sort of senator so many of us expected, this another race that has inspired me not to vote unless a better alternative materializes.
February 18 at 10:28am · Like

MC
I'm pretty in the same boat as JG. Mr. Freiberger will have to step it up to get my vote. His recent statement was a step in the right direction. I definitely don't want to hear anymore about his ball playing days.
February 18 at 1:31pm · Like · 1

Roger A. Baylor How can Silent Ron be punished? Give a guy an idea here.
February 18 at 1:44pm · Like

KB
Without a strong candidate running against him, I'm not sure he sees his actions as remotely harming his future and continued political aspirations.
February 18 at 1:47pm · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Chuck didn't lose by much last time. But: I understand all your points.
February 18 at 2:03pm · Like

KB
Grooms is more entrenched now....
February 18 at 2:05pm · Like

Roger A. Baylor
I'll end with this. We all hate sporting analogies, but I've always been hesitant to underestimate Chuck. He hustled and got the most out of average basketball skills. Now, granted, I'd like to see that diligence applied toward a left-liberal agenda like mine. At the end of the day, we're going to have a State Senator no matter what. Silent Ron's a disaster, and voting against the worst candidate is a refuge of sorts. Dunno, but for now, I stick to my viewpoint.
February 18 at 8:29pm · Like

AB
Freiberger is more conservative than Ron in many ways. Even if Ron wasn't a family friend, I wouldn't vote for Chuck. The Clark County races are shaping up to be much more interesting to me, especially the prosecutors race. Both guys are very much qualified. You got to like that.
February 18 at 8:34pm · Like

Roger A. Baylor
AB, yeah, well, Ron loses me forever on the HJR fiasco, especially compared with his continual advocacy of same old economic development fluffing; apparently it's okay to subsidize the unctuous Kerry Stemlers of the world while at the same time dissing the sort of diversity that builds a genuine contemporary workforce. I call that old and out of touch ... politically, of course; he seems a nice enough guy personally. Then there's the silence.
February 18 at 8:42pm · Like

KB
I, too, take issue with the silence. Whether it's bridges/tolls, school vouchers, or HJR-3, he has yet to tell constituents which way his political winds are blowing until he actually votes. And even when an entire school cafeteria or gym is telling him they don't like the plan as outlined by the GOP, he lines right up for the party line. It makes him look like a political pawn playing typical political games, whether he intends to be one or not. I disagree with Clere on many things, but have been heartened by his principled stances on Medicaid and HJR-3 even when they've ruffled party feathers ... On the other hand, I wasn't impressed with Freiberger last time I saw his campaign materials. His pitch seemed to boil down to him being a democrat in name only, and that he has a conservative haircut. I'm also not terribly impressed by anyone currently serving on the county council, given that body's track record of managing the county and its funds. I'll reserve judgment until I see more of what he has to say this time around, but I'm not terribly hopeful he'll present a strong candidacy or viable option against an incumbent.
February 18 at 9:11pm · Like

RS
Ron Grooms made a choice. He must be fired. If voting for Chuck Freiberger accomplishes that, so be it. At the very least, Freiberger will pretend to listen to constituents
February 18 at 9:15pm · Like · 1

Ron Grooms
Roger,If you would like to contact the State House office phone, 317-234-9425,and leave your name and number ,I will be happy to return your call as soon as possible.You can email me at S46@iga.in.gov.In November,2013, we conducted four town hall meetings on each Saturday morning in November.On Friday,February28,2014 we will complete our fourth straight Town Hall meeting on Fridays when we meet in Highlander Point.We appear weeky in the district to gather input and provide my position on issues. HJR 3( House Joint Resolution) came to the Senate after being amended in the House after its origin.The Senate had 5 session days to debate the bill after the House sent it to the Senate.My opinion was seldom asked by the media and when asked was never printed.Many citizens spoke their opinions during our weekly February meetings or during private meetings of small groups as requested.There were several meetings of four or less with me, on both sides of the HJR 3 issues.I am currently answering letters from January about this issue. Also.let me know if you have concerns about the various winery or microbrewery bills that passed in recent sessions. Ron
February 23 at 12:48am · Like

RS
Hey, Roger. See? Ron has been "responsive." He's perfectly willing to tell you that he is responsive. You should be ashamed of yourself for letting yourself read anything into his actual vote on HJR-3 or any prior votes that he is anything other than responsive. After all, this is only the defining issue of the 21st century so far. What makes you think Sen. Ron Grooms is a bigot who is completely disconnected with a demographic as little as 5 years younger than he? What makes you think he is an ideologue so wrapped up in partisan lockstep that he is willing to create a legal, nay Constitutional ban on the marriages of homosexuals? It is clear to me, from Mr. Grooms's Facebook response that he merely voted along party lines and simply didn't know that a vast majority of his constituents find his vote to be repulsive and disqualifying. Perhaps only now does he realize how deeply he has diminished his reputation and legacy. Gosh, Roger Baylor, you seem to have been so unfair. Surely now Sen. Grooms will commit to kill this bill in the next legislative session. Aren't you now embarrassed that you called him out? Sen. Grooms is sensitive to this issue and no merely voted aye to let us know how responsive he is to constituent sentiment. Clearly, you have hurt his feelings. If only he had known how repulsive his vote would be, he would have stood up for the future, not a regressive past.
February 23 at 2:33am · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Apparently he can be reached if predisposed to agree, but if not, then the damage must be completed first, before belated alibis are proffered. Lame.
20 hours ago

Chuck Freiberger for State Senate.

I've known of Chuck Freiberger since elementary school basketball. Once we were at Floyd Central, we were teammates in baseball and basketball all the way through, from grades 7 through 12. He then played baseball at IU Southeast, and while I did not follow suit, I tried to do my own small part by drinking oceans of beer with a handful of his teammates. He became a teacher, coach, parent and politician. Nothing wrong with any of that, is there?

We're friends, Chuck and me -- not particularly close, but friends. Obviously he's a local Democratic Party stalwart, and I have my disagreements with that particular entity. There's simply no way that Chuck could be as pinko-lefty as me and survive politically. However, his fundamental instincts are sound, as when he attended NABC's health department board meeting last year and expressed support for our appeal. There isn't much he can do about the two-versus-one Falangist imbalance among the county commissioners; no matter, because perhaps he'll be moving on to bigger things.

Earlier today, Silent Ron Grooms voted in support of HJR-3. Having done so, it now is guaranteed: Grooms cannot receive my vote in his re-election campaign this fall.

You may say: But Roger, you wouldn't have voted for him, anyway, irrespective of his view on HJR-3 (known as the Hoosier Stain). I can't deny that. The difference is that the sheer embarrassment of Grooms's stance, and the lengthy silence preceding it -- almost surely a reticence borne of utter terror -- compels me to be more pro-active than might otherwise have been the case.

I'll be donating to Chuck's campaign, and if he pleases, I'll try to devise a way to raise additional money for it. I'll enthusiastically vote for Chuck, and I'll urge my friends and neighbors to do so, too.

If you believe in human rights and freedoms, in the promise of equality in America, and in basic notions of fairness and compassion, Ron Grooms left you today. He may yet try to explain it, but he cannot. It's over, and Ron Grooms must go.

Please join me in supporting Chuck Freiberger for State Senate (46).

Krull on HJR-3: "Is that who we want to be?"

It's the Hoosier Stain, and it needs to go away.

John Krull | HJR 3 to native son: You can't go home again

 ... What my schoolmate is saying is that, if HJR 3 finds its way into our constitution, he and his partner won’t come back here. They won’t spend their money in our shops and restaurants. Their taxes won’t go toward building our roads, supporting our schools and paying for our police and fire departments.

That is a powerful argument.

But it’s not the argument that closes the deal for me. That argument comes at the end of his note ...

HJR-3: Silent Ron must vote as early as next Monday.

(3:45 p.m. update -- apologies; I got my committees/full Senate mixed up. I've amended the header. The measure will go up for a vote without the civil union clause restored)

As today's 1:30 p.m. appointment with HJR-3 voting destiny approaches, State Senator Ron Grooms is terrified, even as the inexorably marginalized bigots take yet another one on the chin in Kentucky.

Kentucky Gay Marriage Ban 'Practically' Over, Says Congressman John Yarmuth, by Phillip Bailey (WFPL)

Democratic Congressman John Yarmuth is predicting the end of Kentucky's gay marriage ban now that a federal judge has ruled a key provision unconstitutional.

Might as well send Silent Ron another e-mail. I'm pulling for him to reach down deep and do the right thing, but he probably needs as much help as he can get.

It's not every day you wake up knowing that you can change the course of history. Today is one of those days.

The Senate will vote on HJR-3 at 1:30. By tonight, we'll know if we've stopped the amendment from going to the ballot in November.

Your Senators is considering, right now, how they'll vote today. Click here to urge them to vote NO on HJR-3 -- this could be your last shot:




http://freedomIN.org/LetsMakeHistory
The next time you hear from us today, I'm hoping we'll be sharing some great news -- that we succeeded in blocking a divisive ballot campaign in the fall.

Let's do this,

Megan Robertson 
Freedom Indiana

Indiana legislative hijinks: HJR-3 goes to the Senate, and Mike Pence explores evasiveness.

By a vote of 8-4, the Senate Rules Committee advanced the House's amended version of HJR-3 to the full Senate.

You can read all about it in the IndyStar.

Among noteworthy aspects of this development are a continuing GOP disconnect about what it means to support a good business climate, the ongoing willingness of African-American preachers to shoot themselves in the foot, and the everlasting reticence of Silent Ron Grooms to engage his constituents in dialogue about these issues.

Meanwhile, speaking of disconnection, self-harm and intellectual cluelessness, here comes HJR-3 advocate Mike Pence to loot local government finance sans substantive explanation ... all in the name of a good business climate. Today's word, second only to barnacle: Putz.

What does 'unduly harm' mean to Gov. Pence?, by Tony Cook (IndyStar)

... Consider this exchange on Thursday when a group of reporters all sought Gov. Mike Pence's take on the estimated $1 billion hit that local governments, schools and libraries could face if his plan to phase out Indiana's tax on businesses equipment comes to pass.

Pence has a penchant for saying that he doesn't want the phaseout to "unduly harm" local government. Here's how reporters tried – and tried – to pin him down on what precisely "unduly harm" means.

"How We Will Defeat HJR-3 in the Indiana Senate."

Verbatim from Freedom Indiana. Does Silent Ron have heartburn yet? It's okay. He's a pharmacist.

My guess is that Silent Ron will NOT appreciate the rally in New Albany planned for Wednesday, February 5:

Join us at our Community Meeting in New Albany this Wednesday. This is the final push to stop HJR-3 in the General Assembly.

After Grooms votes in favor of this abomination, let's just hope that Chuck Freiberger is paying attention.

---

It's been a pretty intense couple of weeks in our campaign to stop the anti-freedom HJR-3.

So much has happened. And together, we've made A TON of progress in defending liberty for all Hoosiers.

But as HJR-3 moves to the Senate, we have our work cut out for us if we're going to defeat this amendment once and for all.

Check out our new graphic to see our latest progress and what lies ahead as we work to stop HJR-3:

There's no doubt about it: amending HJR-3 to remove the second sentence was a historic step -- one that many thought we could never accomplish.

Still, HJR-3 is alive, and in the coming days, our opponents in the Senate will try as hard as they can to reinsert the hostile second sentence that would permanently ban all protections for same-sex couples ...

 ... Share our latest graphic on Facebook and Twitter to explain what's next in our campaign and ask your friends to join the movement to stop HJR-3.

http://FreedomIN.org/infographic/

The only reason we are closer to keeping this amendment off the ballot in November is because Hoosiers like you have spoken out, shared your stories and made an unbelievable impact.

Onward to the Senate,

Megan Robertson
Campaign Manager, Freedom Indiana

From Lafayette IN: "Amended or not, HJR-3 needs to die."

Silent Ron Grooms keeps telling us that he has a plan ... is it HJR-3?

Lafayette's newspaper of record doesn't think much of such a plan. Maybe Silent Ron can get excused.

online.com/article/20140129/OPINION01/301290015/Editorial-Amended-not-HJR-3-needs-die">Editorial: Amended or not, HJR-3 needs to die, Lafayette Journal & Courier

... Forget the technicalities. Forget the lawsuits that are bound to follow. Forget the heaping insults waiting to be hurled at Indiana by those who wonder how a state is willing to plant its flag on the wrong side of history.

Singling out a population of Hoosiers in the name of defending marriage — an institution under attack from plenty of traditional forces of the heterosexual variety (affairs, divorce, indifference) — is wrong from an ethical standpoint and it’s wrong from a public policy standpoint. The meaning of anyone’s marriage vows won’t change one iota if HJR-3 dies.

HJR-3, amended or not, is simply wrong.

Pull the plug on HJR-3 now.

Excuse me, says Stemler, as amended HJR-3 moves to Silent Ron Grooms's desk.

I was told yesterday that Steve Stemler is a kind and wonderful man, who might have voted "yes" or "no" to HJR-3, but decided to opt out, because of, er, well ...

Stemler now can be defined by an inability to participate in a measure he once deigned to co-author. Would he have opted for neutrality in WWII? Is his brain hurting?

At any rate, the House has spoken, sending HJR-3 to the Senate, where we now have the great pleasure of watching Silent Ron squirm. Yesterday, every "yes" vote was a Republican.

Indiana House passes HJR-3 with changes, sends measure to Senate (Dan Spehler at Fox59)

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind.—The Indiana House passed the amended version of HJR-3 Tuesday afternoon.

The bill passed the full house by a vote of 57-40. The measure will now be sent to the Senate.

On Monday, lawmakers dropped HJR3′s controversial 2nd sentence.

Steve Stemler excused from a decision yet again as the House excises an HJR-3 clause and fundamentalist notjobs reach for their Bics.

Gazing at the "how they voted" list, one sees the name Steven Stemler and a word that prompts Yogi Berra's "deja vu all over again."

That'd be "excused." Not exactly a profile in courage, and yep; we've all been here before ... in 2011.

Same-sex marriage: One in the win column for Rep. Clere, who refrains from supporting the "language of hate."

Rep. Steve Stemler, D-Jeffersonville, was excused from House action on Tuesday and did not vote. However, he was listed as a co-author of the bill.

As this was the case again yesterday, douchebaggery has a new poster child. Meanwhile, the Indy Star's reporters explain the shape our GOPsters are in, which I can describe with brevity: Like I've always told you, fundamentalism simply is bad for business.

Indiana House amends HJR-3, possibly delaying referendum, by Tony Cook and Barb Berggoetz (IndyStar)

 ... Democrats say Republicans are in a bind for several reasons. They're torn between two traditional bases of support: the business community and social conservatives. They also fear growing opposition to gay marriage bans could hurt them in future elections.

"The governor made it clear he didn't want the amendment on the ballot in 2016," said Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary. "So, now, what do they do? They are between a rock and a hard place. They are killing themselves even nationally with this whole issue. Why would they continue to pursue this when most of the folks who were opposed to this are their friends – big business (and) the (Indy) chamber" ...

The straight lead paragraphs:

In an atmosphere of rapidly shifting opinions on gay marriage, nearly two dozen Indiana House Republicans bucked their leadership to strip a same-sex marriage ban of the clause opponents find most objectionable.

The House voted 52-43 to remove the proposed constitutional amendment's second sentence, which would have banned civil unions and similar arrangements. That leaves only the first sentence, which would still ban gay marriages ...

Brian Howey: "Bosma and the second sentence."

It's now 1:30 p.m. What happens next?

Brian Howey: Bosma and the second sentence

... Why wouldn't attorney Bosma - acknowledging the amendment is flawed with the second sentence - insist on its removal? If this is important enough to enshrine in the state's constitution, shouldn't it be done correctly?

The problem is, Gov. Mike Pence - while being a long-time advocate of the amendment - doesn't want to run for reelection in 2016 with HJR-3 on the ballot. And he should know how hot button social politics can impact a campaign. He became the first governor in 50 years to win office with less than 50 percent of the vote in 2012, and it happened because another candidate on the ticket made outrageous remarks about abortion and rape, and it sent female voters fleeing the Republican ticket in droves.

As for maintaining a House majority, Bosma and the Republicans have 69 seats and HJR-3 might endanger a handful of them in college towns, urban and some suburban areas ...

The PC at LouisvilleBeer.com: "A craft beer toast to opposing HJR-3."

I spent a few minute searching the Internet for a clue as to the whereabouts of Rep. Steve Stemler, District 71's Democrat-pretend, and evidence of his existence is elusive. His last on-line newsletter was in August of 2013, although he mustered the time earlier in January to congratulate a local volleyball team. Evidently there is no available wi-fi when you're up the butt of the ORBP.

First, the C-J on Republican HJR qualms; then, my weekly column ... this time, about beer and activism.

---

Indiana House members wavering on marriage amendment
More than a third of the Indiana House members who voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2011 now plan to vote against it or are wavering (Courier-Journal) FULL ARTICLE »

There's a reason why the phrase "These Machines Kill Fascists" lies near and dear to my heart.

A craft beer toast to opposing HJR-3

Seated amid the cheesy 1960s-era veneer that delineates New Albany’s primary civic meeting room, idly monitoring a city council meeting, I was wishing there’d have been time at The Exchange for a third martini (sweet Jeeebus, why don’t they run a cash bar at functions like this?), when suddenly a beer discussion broke out on Twitter. My two cents quickly dispensed via the miracle of the iPhone, it was back to the numbingly predictable provincial political skullduggery

Then a friend tweeted.

“You own a brewery? I thought you were a city engineer or something.”

Sometimes I wonder myself ... (read the whole article at LouisvilleBeer.com)

Mayor Jeff Gahan is on the list of mayors opposed to HJR-3.

Previously, I noted the absence of certain names on an important list.

Human rights on the down-low: If not for New Albany's city council opposition to the HJRs, we'd already be constructing the gulag.

This morning, I took another look at the Freedom Indiana website, and while Jeffersonville's Mike Moore remains conspicuously (and not unexpectedly) absent, Jeff Gahan's name is right there on the list. That's good. I'm happy to see it, even if I cannot recall the occasion of his utterance.

Who opposes HJR-3?

It's an ever-growing list. This gives New Albany a mayor and council in opposition, and let's not forget Rep. Ed Clere, who stands in stark contrast to his low-wattage compatriot, Rhonda Rhoads, with Ron Grooms still fleeing the question.

Interestingly, just the other day at Facebook, Grooms's opponent signaled an embrace of the argument from semantics. Chuck Freiberger was replying to a question from Bob:

Bob: It's been a long time chuck hope you and family are doing we'll have to ask you your stand on abortion and guy marriage pm me if you want please

Chuck: Bob, I will give you the short answer. As a catholic, I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control. I do believe there are matters for decisions when it comes to the health for the mom and rape. The doctors and patients need to make that decision. (Marriage) I don't think it is right for me or anyone else to descriminate against others of whom I am different. I believe our state constitution already has marriage defined as being between a man and a woman. I would not vote in favor of the bill being presented in the legistlature now because it goes too far in taking the rights away from others.

Frankly, I couldn't tell whether the questioner was too eaten up with God to use the word "gay", or was simply illiterate. What about the gals, Bob? Can they marry, too?

I suppose this means that Chuck's okay with discrimination as a state law, but not as a constitutional change. Maybe party chairman Adam Dickey can clarify that for us, and then broadcast the clarification over these loud speakers.

Of course, with every passing day, council members Scott Blair and Diane Benedetti look more and more isolated on what probably will be remembered as a keystone issue of our time.

That's a real shame.

On HJR-3, Tully takes Rhoads to school, and she skips class.

A while back on Facebook, Brad Bell asked State Representative Rhonda Rhoads to comment on her motives for sponsoring HJR-3 (formerly HJR-6), and she did.

I believe that if the definition of marriage is changed from what is current law in the state of Indiana , than it should go before the citizens of Indiana to decide if they want a different definition, not allow one judge to make that determination. This discussion has been going on for some time. Let it rest in the hands of the voters... Not me, not one judge. Amending the constitution is not easy nor was it intended to be easy. Lots of discussion and time are required. I want you and all Hoosiers to participate in the discussion hence my help in authoring this bill. Thank you for participating!

Yesterday, IndyStar columnist Matthew Tully replied; not specifically to Rhoads, which would be tantamount to asking a weather forecaster to look out the window, but to Indiana's enduring strain of theocratic fascism, which has reared its stupid, latent, ugly head repeatedly during the HJR era. Tully's elegant and sensible retort is among the finest I have read, and unlike certain city councilpersons, I read more than one book every five years.

Rhoads, Ron Grooms, Steve Stemler (the latter a Dixiecrat) -- could they ... would they ... are they capable of understanding Tully's position?

Tully: Gay marriage debate’s biggest problem? It’s just plain wrong, by Matthew Tully (IndyStar)

... This amendment is so disturbingly wrong, so morally offensive, so out of step with where our nation is, that it’s hard to believe its advocates continue to persist. The idea that our political leaders are calling for a public referendum to make clear in the constitution that some of our neighbors are second-class citizens — well, it’s stomach-turning ...

... Although I hope that the state I love would reject the amendment, and the spirit behind it, I don’t know what will happen in what will likely be a low turnout mid-term election. Just like I don’t know what would have happened if Hoosiers had been asked not so long ago to vote on an amendment to ban interracial marriages, or to protect segregated schools or other forms of discrimination ...

Democrat-pretend Steve Stemler can't wait to support HJR-3. How quaint.

If you can find evidence anywhere that Rep. Stemler has changed his mind, let me know and I'll happily publish it. Until then ... how exactly is he a Democrat?

Goliath's comments compelled me to dig out this piece from February 16, 2011:

Same-sex marriage: One in the win column for Rep. Clere, who refrains from supporting the "language of hate."

 ... Hurriedly speed-dialing ROCK's Ayatollah Wickens for direction, Stemler first beat the pander bear rush to become co-author of HJR-6, but did not cast a vote either way yesterday. Weidenbener explains:

Rep. Steve Stemler, D-Jeffersonville, was excused from House action on Tuesday and did not vote. However, he was listed as a co-author of the bill.

Professional grade fluffing like that belongs in California, not Indiana, but I digress. Kindly permit me to publicly ask a question that surely must have occurred to many readers: Is there any known way to distinguish Steve Stemler from a garden variety GOP stooge, save for his own declaration of affiliation, one regularly contradicted by his political actions?

Crickets chirp, pins drop.

Human rights on the down-Iow: If not for New Albany's city council opposition to the HJRs, we'd already be constructing the gulag.

As we await the GOP's inevitable legislative hijinks with regard to HJR-3 (formerly HJR-6), otherwise known as the Hoosier Stain  ...

HJR 3 vote delayed NUVO (NUVO)

Analyst breaks down details of HJR-3 (WANE.com)

 ... let's look back to December 3, and those 12 mayors in Indiana who took a bipartisan approach in speaking out against the brown shirts.

Indiana Mayors Stand with Freedom Indiana, Speak Out against HJR-6

Today, Mayors from across the state of Indiana stood with Freedom Indiana and spoke out against HJR-6, the proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would permanently define marriage and would remove existing protections under law for same-sex and unmarried couples and families.

Let's see. I don't see the mayors of New Albany and Jeffersonville on that list. But I probably just missed them. Maybe they used invisible ink.

The Indiana Democratic Party seems solidly and publicly against HJR-3. That's fitting and proper. Meanwhile, glancing at the Floyd County Democratic Party's web site and Facebook page, I find several references (on FB only) to HJR-3, including a link to a Democratic legislator's sound viewpoint, but no actual statement opposing the Hoosier Stain's spread.

But hey -- I probably just missed it.

Of course, here in Floyd County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans, and Republican presidential candidates win the vote in landslides, there's a good deal of getting down with the down-low. Apparently the Dixiecrat contingent is easily offended ... eh, Adam?

Elsewhere in Southern Indiana, we've seen moral cowardice rise to the top as Jeff CM, Tech educator, River Ridge flunky and One Southern Indiana chief all ducked and covered on HJR-6, HJR-3 immediate predecessor.

However, in November, the New Albany city council stood tall: A "principled" Blair votes no, but council approves resolution condemning HJR-6.

Afterward, I wrote CM Blair, asking him to explain his non-vote.

I'm still waiting for the reply. That's how we do it, down here, on the down-low, where the headlights of speed-crazed oncoming one-way arterial traffic aren't the only phenomenon freezing politicians dead in their tracks.

Indiana House GOP omits agenda item as Rhonda Rhoads rushes forward with a muddy shovel.

Their own press release.

Their own pictograms.

At NAC: "This is bad law-making," but still, Rhonda Rhoads lends her name to HJR infamy.

"This is bad law-making," but still, Rhonda Rhoads lends her name to HJR infamy.

Photo cribbed from a Pence for President web site. Seriously.

Corydon must be so very proud today.

Indiana lawmakers pick up fight over same-sex marriage ban, by Barb Berggoetz and Tony Cook (Indy Star)

The fiery debate over a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage is headed for a hearing Monday, but an effort by Republican lawmakers to quell some concerns about the measure could further muddy the issue.

After months of laying low on the proposal, House Republicans filed a resolution Thursday that would send the amendment to voters in November.

But they also introduced a wildcard: A companion measure, House Bill 1153, that seeks to clarify the amendment's intent ...

 ... Indiana's proposed amendment, now called House Joint Resolution 3, is being sponsored by Republican Reps. Eric Turner of Cicero; Tim Wesco, Osceola; Wes Culver, Goshen and Rhonda Rhoads, Corydon ...

 ... "You're admitting there's a problem with the amendment," said Megan Robertson, campaign manager for Freedom Indiana, a coalition fighting the proposal. "They are playing political games with the state constitution."

Legal experts echoed some of those concerns.

Drobac, the IU law professor, questioned why lawmakers in support of the ban needed to tack on an extra bill if their previous claims that the amendment would not affect issues like domestic partner benefits were true.

"This is bad law-making. These lawmakers should know what they're doing," she said. "We need legislation that is clear and comports with law-making procedure. Proponents will profess what it does, but it will have to be litigated."