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.

"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."

Ron Grooms seeks input on legislative topics, just so long as it isn't about HJR-6.

There no mention of HJR-6, and that's probably because HJR-6 scares him to death. Or, maybe it has something to do with his "yes" vote back in 2011.

Back in June, Grooms indicated he'd be copping a feel.

State Sen. Ron Grooms, R-Jeffersonville, said while the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act opens up the possibility of putting a same-sex marriage ban amendment into the state’s constitution, he’s going to spend part of the summer getting a feel for what his constituents want.

Well, how was it?

To read more about the survey that does not include HJR-6, follow the link and scale the paywall if necessary, or just wait for the mailing.

GROOMS: State senator seeks input on legislative topics

During the upcoming legislative session, Indiana lawmakers will discuss and vote on many important issues affecting Indiana residents and our local communities. This includes efforts to promote job creation, improve education address health care needs and more.

Your input on these topics is vital and helps me better represent you at the Statehouse. That’s why I am sending out a survey requesting your feedback on topics that will likely come before the General Assembly this session.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING
EARLY-CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
EDUCATION FUNDING
MEDICAID
CRIMINAL CODE REFORM

Council agenda scant, so let's make a New Year's non-binding resolution to cut a rug.

New Albany's city council meets tonight, and yet again, it has quite little to do apart from housekeeping. The sole agenda item is this:

A-10-13 Additional Appropriation From EDIT/Riverboat Fund Matching Fund Of Fire Department Grant For Fire House Vehicle Exhaust Systems (Coffey 1&2)

Fortunately for the Fire Department, it's an appropriation and not a non-binding resolution, meaning that 6th district council representative Scott Blair can take part in discussing it, thus earning his pay.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, CM Blair has yet to reply to an e-mail I sent him on November 22, repeated here in full.

Scott

Please consider this your opportunity to clarify what happened last night. I refer you to the last sentence of WDRB's coverage of the meeting: "One council member abstained, and Scott Blair was the only council member to vote against the resolution."

As a council regular, I know that in the past, you have at least prefaced such an instance with an explanation, but last evening, you did not. That's one problem; the people in that gallery are not regulars, and are not aware of your casuistry. A second problem is the casuistry itself, and the nature of your way of expressing opposition to resolutions. As I put it in the blog:

In essence, if a resolution strikes Blair as unsuitable for voting, he'll say so aloud (curiously, not so last night) ... and proceed to vote against it.

But how can either a yes or no vote be viewed as an expression of Blair's rejection of voting? Both are votes. As others before me have cogently noted, Blair's only coherent option if he wishes to express the view that he should not be asked to vote is to abstain from voting. Consequently, each time Blair has publicly diddled his 'I shan't vote' principle, he has followed not by abstaining, but by voting -- in each instance, as again last night, by voting no.

In turn, this means that far from expressing principle, he is in fact choosing a side. History will record his vote, not his objections.

Frankly, I find this very troubling. As far as the outside world is concerned, my 6th district CM (where I own property and a business) has voted AGAINST an expression of principle (that word again) opposition to tyranny. A leftist like me gets it. Ed Clere gets it. What are you trying to say here? I guarantee that the majority of NABC's 70 employees are going to have a very hard time grasping your stance here -- and HJR-6 has just a bit to do with economic development, doesn't it?

Surely you do not support HJR-6, and surely, you'd like to elaborate on this for my readership.

Thank you

R

And yet it's never too late to set the record straight.

We'd be delighted to publish a statement from CM Blair explaining the vote and the nature of his objections to resolutions of the sort considered last time the council met. This might be a dialogue, and a means to achieve greater understanding. You might even refer to transparency as a non-brainer.

But: It takes two to tango. NAC's got the ballet slippers on. Let's dance.

Gonder on HJR-6 resolution: "Most of the City Council did speak for the hopes of those who appealed to us."

John Gonder published this essay at his blog (below).

Verily, there have been times in the past when I've fully agreed with a close friend, who once said of Gonder, "I wish he'd spend more time being a council person and less time being Senator Gonder," or words to this effect.

I also agree completely with John's sentiments in this piece, even as I wish that certain of the council's progressive/coherent members would remain engaged publicly with local concerns on a less rarified plane, and to advocate for them over time, even if it takes more time than usually is allocated for such advocacy.

Here then is one: Our city's streets as an indice of civil rights and social justice.

I know; it sounds mundane. But it affects each and every one of us, every single day -- black or white, straight or gay (and perhaps more importantly) Democrat or Republican.

Here is the essay.

Reach Out

 ... A couple nights ago the New Albany Common Council met in what seemed to be one of its particularly thin proceedings. No ordinances were under consideration. The administration had asked for nothing. Instead we were asked to weigh in on something The News and Tribune likes to refer to as, (and why not paraphrase?) "a meaningless, empty, expression". The empty rhetoric this time was directed at those in the state legislature who would commandeer the state constitution for political purposes (HJR-6); as bait, or shiny objects for those who would see danger, and thus political advantage, in the pursuit of happiness by "others". Others may be refined, or defined, to include q-words, f-words and anything other than me- or we-words.

As I looked out into the gallery that night I was humbled by the hope the "others" had placed in us--their local government. As The Tribune is wont to say, the New Albany Common Council weighing in on state or national issues is pointless, perhaps grandstanding, but certainly, ineffectual. But for the time the others spoke in our chamber, I, at least, glimpsed just a bit of representative democracy. For that brief time, I think, people looked to us to hear their message of disaffection, their hope for inclusion in that which the majority takes for granted. They looked to us to speak for them, our friends, our neighbors, our un-acknowledged kin.

Moral cowardice rises to the top as Jeff CM, Tech educator, River Ridge flunky and One Southern Indiana chief duck and cover on HJR-6.

Nope. No answers, not then, not now.

They've all had years to consider HJR-6, otherwise known as "The Hoosier Stain", but now that the bigotry has come home to roost, none of them have thought about it yet.

Nathan Samuel doesn't have "a feel" for the view of his constituents, primarily because he's already opted out of the discussion with swirling casuistry exceeding that deployed by New Albany's CM Blair.

David L. Clifton, a professor at Ivy Tech Sellersburg, blithely repeats the hoary stereotype to the effect than we business folks think only about profit, and harbor no interest in matter of lowly social conscience -- although he makes no effort to explain why powerhouses like Cummins and Eli Lilly oppose HJR-6. Maybe it's just our retrograde business thinkers down here in One Southern Indiana's constituency.

Notably absent from weighing in on the matter were several of Southern Indiana’s major employers. The News and Tribune requested comments from Clark Memorial Hospital and American Commercial Lines Inc. on their stance on the resolution, but neither of the entities responded as of press time.

One Southern Indiana's Wendy Dant Chesser typically wiggles out from any hint of coherence on the topic by citing her organization's failure to reach "consensus," which naturally didn't stop it from advocating for the Bridges Boondoggle, or joining the far right over affordable health care, but the single best evasion of all comes from Jerry Acy of the River Ridge Commerce Center, which owes its very existence, as well as its current status as the Mecca we're all compelled to worship five times daily, to political maneuverings:

“That is something our board has not even entertained,” said River Ridge Executive Director Jerry Acy. “Typically, we don’t take a position on political matters.”

These are the "leaders' in the community -- but is it a community, or an Adam Sandler flick? Ye Gods, EVEN BOB CAESAR GETS IT. Here it is at The 'Bune, if you can slip through the Hanson Wall: Local officials weigh in — or don’t — about gay marriage amendment; Area business agencies say they haven't formed an opinion.

A "principled" Blair votes no, but council approves resolution condemning HJR-6.

7:00 a.m. Friday update: WDRB makes my point with the final line of its report: "One council member abstained, and Scott Blair was the only council member to vote against the resolution." 

Earlier tonight, the Common Council of the city of New Albany approved R-13-16, a resolution opposing HJR-6.

The vote was seven in favor, with Diane Benedetti abstaining after a lightning-fast attempt to match a thicket of post-it notes detailing 5th district voter rolls with numbers from a flurry of phone calls she received late in the afternoon, presumably from the Koch brothers and their gay-baiters nationwide.

Scott Blair was alone in voting against the resolution. More about that in a moment.

Overall, with Blair the one glaring exception, the council acquitted itself well. Lone Republican council person Kevin Zurschmiede sounded confused for a bit, but rallied nicely. Bob Caesar said nothing, and was firm and crisp in joining the majority. John Gonder and Shirley Baird spoke convincingly, and Greg Phipps eloquently provided all the necessary preparatory information. Dan Coffey surprised some, although not me, by forcefully advocating for the resolution. I believe Coffey's life experiences have led him to savor the role of the underdog and downtrodden, and although the two of us come from entirely different poles, we have this one thing in common, if nothing else.

On the other hand, Blair achieved the rare distinction of striking out before stepping to the plate. All evening long, he spoke only one word with regard to a sensible, rational resolution opposing shameful violations of human rights: "No".

Regular council attendees of a particularly masochistic bent know that in the past, Blair has bizarrely confused his council seat with a slot on the Supreme Court of the United States, choosing to somewhat pedantically take issue with any resolution he feels does not pertain to his specific mission on the city council. It is entirely a procedural objection, and we are supposed to take this as an expression of profound governmental conviction even if he hasn't quite divulged the criteria for it in any great detail.

In essence, if a resolution strikes Blair as unsuitable for voting, he'll say so aloud (curiously, not so last night) ... and proceed to vote against it.

But how can either a "yes" or "no" vote be viewed as an expression of Blair's rejection of voting? Both are votes. As others before me have cogently noted, Blair's only coherent option if he wishes to express the view that he should not be asked to vote is to abstain from voting. Consequently, each time Blair has publicly diddled his "I shan't vote" principle, he has followed not by abstaining, but by voting -- in each instance, as again last night, by voting "no". In turn, this means that far from expressing principle, he is in fact choosing a side. History will record his vote, not his objections.

Has anyone on the council even tried to explain this to him, or is is some sort of hazing ritual gone tragically astray?

Consider that many of the folks in the gallery tonight do not regularly attend council meetings. They are not aware of Blair's tortured, quasi-Jesuitical "pick and choose then flip the coin again" soft shoe when it comes to proper versus improper resolution jurisdiction.

However, after tonight, what they DO know about Blair is that sans explanation, the 6th district councilman voted against a resolution opposing human rights violations. Yes, in effect, he chose a side. It is quite clearly the wrong side, because it's the side that mocks human dignity -- and at the end of the day, it's a public relations failure of epic dimension, all because of slavish devotion to an obscure procedural principle.

Perhaps as a banker, Blair mistakes principle for principal; after all, even if the principle of human rights fails to excite like the cost-benefit aphrodisiac, there's always high interest in principal, or rather the high interest owed on principal -- and as procedural devotion goes, and fetishes are nurtured, there's always the blessed penalty for early withdrawal ... except that premature stupefaction couldn't possibly be the desired outcome for someone like the councilman.

Could it?

ON THE AVENUES: The Hoosier Stain.

ON THE AVENUES: The Hoosier Stain.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

The story goes that Groucho Marx was standing in line at a famous Hollywood restaurant when he turned to a woman and asked, “Are you alone?”

“Why, yes I am,” came her flattered response.

“Then there must be something terribly wrong with you,” shrugged the comedian before turning away.

Groucho was male, and leering older codgers indeed can be scary, even to other men. We don’t know the woman’s ethnicity or political affiliation, and it’s worth remembering there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being alone. The episode might well be apocryphal; after all, why would a world-famous movie star be required to wait in line – unless it was his Jewishness?

However, what we DO know is that yesterday, the state of Illinois made national headlines.

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation Wednesday allowing same-sex weddings starting this summer, making President Barack Obama's home state the 16th overall — and largest in the nation's heartland — to legalize gay marriage.

As citizens in Illinois celebrated this latest in a growing series of coming out parties, a cinematic tableau began developing in my mind. From street-level views of jubilant Illini, the scene dissolves into the relative quiet of the New Albany city council chamber, where a resolution in opposition to HJR-6 is scheduled for hearing tonight.

House Joint Resolution 6 is a proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution which states: "Only marriage between one(1) man and one(1) woman will be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

If enacted, House Joint Resolution 6 would amend the Constitution of the State of Indiana to do two things: 1) Prohibit any future legislators from passing a law that would allow same-sex couples to legally marry. 2) prohibit any future legislators from enacting a law that would allow legal protections for any unmarried relationships that are similar to marriage, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Indiana law already prohibits same sex marriage. HJR6 makes it permanent.

In the imagined screenplay, I look up from my seat in the peanut gallery and notice a council person reading his meeting agenda. His body language and furrowed countenance testify to discomfiture and cognitive dissonance – alas, not for the first time – and as a good Samaritan, I resolve to come to his assistance.

I rise and stride purposefully to his side.

“Are you troubled by these incessant reminders of same sex marriage, LGBT issues and HJR-6, and feel resentful that yet again, you’re being asked to provide local guidance on an issue that’s outside your presumed bailiwick?”

“Why, yes I am,” comes his relieved response.

“Then there must be something terribly wrong with you,” I shrug, before turning away.

---

Just two days ago, the Purdue University Senate stopped squirming, pulled on its boots and got down to basics, adopting a resolution opposing HJR-6.

Surely it’s because they grasp that if the university’s big cheese-tain Mitch Daniels were to require of Purdue researchers the same commitment to hidebound voodoo ideology demanded of adherence to HJR-6, they’d rightly come to the conclusion, arguably quite belated, that Daniels belongs in a looney bin, and rush forward with strength and resolve to save Hoosier agriculture from a posturing pint-sized Lysenko.

So it is that rarely in this pot-bellied skeptic’s life has it been any better than this.

As an attitudinal tsunami of societal evolution approaches, Indiana Republicans who’ve long since forgotten the lessons of freedom embodied by the American Civil War gaze first at their shoes, then around the hall of mirrors they persist inhabiting, and start making tepid gurgling sounds about the will of the people. What they need most is a swift kick in the balls by Abraham Lincoln.

Then, one pleasant November morning, you arise to the usual espresso and kippers. Hearing a commotion outside, you part the curtains and see numerous visitors of the sort who’d customarily be told to get the hell off your porch: Multi-denominational interfaith representatives, stuffed shirt Ken dolls from Fortune 500 companies, and best of all, those shameless, clucking, congenital fluffers of our douchebag gilded-age oligarchs … all standing by the bushes, holding hands, singing Kumbaya, and insisting that the needs of economic development march hand in hand with bountiful diversity and the expansion of human rights and freedoms.

Granted, living wages seldom are discussed in this context, but we’ll overlook it for now.

They sing, you blink. It’s time to make another espresso, dig out the seismograph from its storage space in the cabinet behind the toilet paper and find a comfy hammock. Opposing HJR-6 is a necessary, fair and decent act – but it’s a lot more fun when the usual suspects switch sides.

We now return to our prevaricating council person, as oft-times before seeking to dodge voting on a resolution owing to some smugly contorted bit of Rococo subterfuge, when all he’s really doing is ducking his responsibility as a human being, because these matters of basic fairness and human dignity, while nagging, are hardly minor.

You look at him, and you repeat after Bono: “Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya.”

And, of course, you go right ahead, bugging him.

---

Recently I was asked, and I paraphrase: Roger, why must you be so confrontational and edgy about this matter? It doesn’t affect you. You’re already married, and to a woman.

It’s because I drink locally but think globally.

It’s because there is reality outside my immediate vicinity.

It’s because I care deeply about human rights, and believe we all deserve the same treatment.

It’s because the promise of the historic American experiment was not intended to be limited to white straight “normal” folks who read just one version of a religious text.

It’s because for so long as human rights and freedoms are restricted owing to the clinging vestiges of any type of dominant caste, we all are diminished as a result.

And it’s because sometimes, if you’re not metaphorically shaken by your dainty oblivious buttoned-down lapels and forcibly fed some genuine truth, you have this tendency to lose focus.

That’s why.

As One Southern Indiana picks its nose and dithers, the Indy council thumbs its nose at HJR-6.

As the weeks pass, and One Southern Indiana remains hunkered passively in its favored trench of non-responsiveness, its plight just gets funnier and funnier.

Want proof? Try to find mention of HJR-6 anywhere at 1Si's business-casual (muted beige) web site, even at the section referred to as Live and Work: Belong.

Zilch. Nada. But hey, baby, let's talk about mobility solutions!

We're doing some networkin'!

Give us some MONEY!!

In this glaring vacuum of 1Si's typically vapid cowardice, permit me to suggest that it's time for local government resolutions to go where our self-appointed regional economic development cadre can't quite bring itself to go. If 1Si can't grasp modernity's obvious social justice issues, maybe it needs a good, healthy kick in the ass, by withholding funding until the cookie-cutter grandees get it right.

City-County Council urges Indiana lawmakers: Kill same-sex marriage ban; Resolution urging constitutional amendment's defeat passes 22-6, by Jon Murray (Indy Star)

“We want to send a loud, clear message, and that is that Indianapolis and Indiana are places that are welcoming for all to live, work, play and raise families,” council Vice President John Barth said. “Simply put, our city needs to attract and retain citizens who want to work with us to make this the best place it can be.”

An amendment banning same-sex marriages would only trammel that goal, he and other opponents say, and the council agreed 22-6.

The council and the mayor are joining an opposition that already includes the Indy Chamber, Indiana University and several smaller colleges. Eli Lilly and Co., Emmis Communications and Cummins, also oppose the amendment and have joined anti-amendment coalition Freedom Indiana.

A Veterans Day message from Freedom Indiana.

(via e-mail, something to induce heartburn in Mike Pence)

---

Roger,

I am very proud to have served my country and our great state by serving in the Air National Guard. However, I'm also quick to point out that compared to others - others whose service brought them to war and harm's way - mine was largely without sacrifice.

My service instilled in me a deep and abiding respect for others and a sense of solidarity, and I have a lasting commitment to my oath to defend the Constitution.

Today, on Veterans Day, I am proud to stand with Veterans for Freedom in opposition to HJR-6.

Read our stories here

The military is part of my journey, and since my service that journey has included meeting my long-time partner, 12 years ago, and welcoming into the world grandchildren from my first marriage. Shortly after the all-time high of becoming a grandparent, this journey included the radical low of being diagnosed with Stage 2 breast cancer and beginning treatment.

But, even in this, I am lucky. Though it is not required by law, my partner's employer exemplifies Hoosier hospitality by offering all family members health care benefits. Right now, their generosity is truly saving my life.

If HJR-6 were passed, the treatment I am receiving could be considered unconstitutional.

Limiting freedom in this way does not equate to my loving life in Indiana and it grates against the oath to defend our Constitution that I took as a member of the US Military.

This Veterans Day, take a moment to think about the freedom and liberty that we hold dear as Hoosiers and Americans - and everyone who has sacrificed to make them a reality.

HJR-6 flies in the face of these values, and that's why I'm proud to stand with fellow veterans - gay and straight - in opposing this harmful amendment.

Read our stories here, and please share them with your friends and family

Together, we can defeat HJR-6 and protect liberty for all Hoosiers.

Thank you and happy Veterans Day,

Lori Perdue
Veterans for Freedom

Attention, sniveling bigots: Indiana University publicly rejects HJR-6 as Mike Pence squirms some more.

From Megan Robertson, as deposited to my inbox. Perhaps never has it been so thoroughly amusing to money-first GOP functionaries in the Hoosier state being forced to confront their self-defining social prejudices. It makes me laugh out loud. Really.

Big news! Today, Indiana University became the latest member of Freedom Indiana, our growing, statewide coalition to defeat HJR-6.

In the announcement, IU President Michael A. McRobbie said:

"As a major employer in the state, IU competes with universities and companies around the world for the very best talent, and HJR6 would needlessly complicate our efforts to attract employees to our campuses around the state."

Indiana University's support sends a strong message that we want our state to be an inviting place to study, work and live, and it's the latest example of the incredible momentum we're building to defeat HJR-6.

We're incredibly excited to add Indiana University to our growing list of coalition partners.

ON THE AVENUES: 1Si, Kerry, ROCK and the gays.

ON THE AVENUES: 1Si, Kerry, ROCK and the gays.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

Remember back in 2007, when One Southern Indiana was tying itself in church/state/oligarchy enrichment knots by ineptly seeking to bind itself to the Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana cabal?

Boy, do WE remember it here at NA Confidential. Never, ever has it been any more fun ripping down statues of idols than when 1Si was thrashing in self-Stemler-inflicted Neanderthal agony over Theatair-X.

Great moments in silent film: Michael Dalby throws Kerry Stemler a lifeline.

Did anyone notice that in the end, when it came to clarifying the relationship of One Southern Indiana with Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana, Michael Dalby duly took responsibility for acknowledging the slippery slope that 1SI chairman of the board Kerry Stemler, not Dalby himself, originally commenced sliding down at the ROCK press conference?

Eminences seldom get grayer than Kerry Stemler, nor logic fuzzier than when refracted through the immaculately laundered linen of his privileged white Wonder Bread mind.

In 2007, Stemler was 1Si's Big Chief Tablet Chairman of the Board, and he had decided one morning over Pop-Tarts and Sanka that it would be a great idea to hop into bed with the meddling theocrats and scripture-quoters at ROCK, because doing so might end the vile threat to regional economic development posed by a solitary smut shop in Clarksville -- this being the same Stemler (and the same 1Si) who were conspiring at the very same time to toll those few precious Kentuckians choosing to cross bridges to come to Indiana and spend their money.

Go figure the economic development merits of THAT strategy ... but I digress. We asked:

What does ROCK's theocratic advocacy have to do with economic development, and why is Stemler giving 1SI's imprimatur to a very specific and exclusionary Christian advocacy group?

As soon became hilariously clear, Stemler's choice of churches had been made without the knowledge of 1Si's then-president, Michael Dalby, who in the end was compelled to take the responsibility hit and control the mayhem as Stemler retreated to the board room for another round of Champale and Chef Boyardee, a pairing of champions.

Now the topic is HJR-6, Indiana's lamentable attempt to fuse reactionary clergy with constitutional amendment, and thus stem the tide of rampant buggery and same sex marriage. The organization calling itself Freedom Indiana explains the basis of opposition to this sheer lunacy.

Freedom for all Hoosiers!

We are a statewide bipartisan coalition of businesses, faith leaders, civil rights and community organizations, and individuals united to defeat HJR-6.

This anti-freedom amendment duplicates existing law and would permanently ban all protections for same-sex couples and their families and remove existing protections for unmarried Hoosiers.

Stand with us, and sign the petition to defeat HJR-6!

As documented daily by reputable news organizations across the state, and others with metered paywalls, the momentum against HJR-6 is building quickly, and as the bookseller pointed out earlier in the week, the dominoes continue to fall against the amendment.

INDIANAPOLIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMES OUT AGAINST ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

"Indiana's struggles to retain its college graduates are well documented and often acknowledged in the state legislature. Its necessity to ease this "brain drain" by attracting talent on a national scale would be inhibited by adopting an unnecessary, discriminatory amendment with fading support from younger generations.

"As the only potential marriage amendment up for consideration nationwide in 2014, it is important to be mindful of the conspicuous part HJR-6 would play in portraying Indiana as a state that welcomes some, but not all, talented workers."

Forever eager for clarification, I've gone to One Southern Indiana's Facebook page twice in recent weeks to ask whether the organization had yet lifted its quivering finger to the winds of modernity, and as yet, no reply has been forthcoming. It's no wonder, given that 1Si possesses the quaint view of social media wherein communications always are a top-down, one-way street. No doubt such an attitude was copped from the likes of Kerry Stemler himself.

It's an institutional thang, tantamount to a human stain. Nowadays Stemler seems to believe he is the chairman of the board of Southern Indiana as a geopolitical entity, and not just calling plays for 1Si. As such, will he be interfering in this great drama?

Indeed, what happens next?

Will 1Si do the right thing?

Will it do anything at all?

If 1Si actually decides to queue for once on history's correct side, will ROCK subsequently gather its members into a tight circle outside 1Si HQ, douse themselves with petrol -- and then both of them catch on fire?

Can we throw Stemler on that same fire and make it a threesome? Hasn't he done enough damage to the regional societal fabric (as opposed the profitability comforter) for one clueless lifetime?

Let's just say that while hopeful, I'm not holding my breath.

What is One Southern Indiana's position v.v. Freedom Indiana? Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

Maureen Hayden's column last week was quite good: Coalition growing against state constitutional gay-marriage ban.

The coalition, called Freedom Indiana, is rapidly expanding its presence out of the state’s capitol city and into communities around Indiana by building the kind of grassroots campaign that can knock traditional political power off its pedestal. [Think of the grassroots campaign of political novice Glenda Ritz who with little money or name recognition took down her well-funded, incumbent opponent in last year’s race for Superintendent of Public Instruction].

There is a passage of particular interest to those of us who monitor One Southern Indiana's perenially slavish devotion to wrongheadedness.

Here’s where the rubber may hit the road: Indiana’s biggest job creators, including Cummins and Eli Lilly and Co., are behind Freedom Indiana. For them, HJR-6 is a stinging rebuke to the 'Hoosier hospitality' that politicians say has helped Indiana recruit jobs and economic investment for our state.

That's why I posed the question to 1Si: "What is One Southern Indiana's position v.v. Freedom Indiana?" As we endure the vigil of days/weeks/months until 1Si (for once) learns that social media is a two-way street (as most other streets should be), it's vital to recall that when the oligarch fluffers claim to be representing us, they actually are not:

One Southern Indiana does not speak for me or this local business. Repeat.

The non-elected oligarch's benevolent society otherwise known as One Southern Indiana does not speak for local business in the broader sense, and it does not speak for NABC in any sense at all -- whether on the topic of managed health care, or tax reform, or the unconscionable boondoggle of the Ohio River Bridges Project.