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 ...

Indiana legislature has a chance to do the right thing, but for the wrong reasons, and merely delaying an error.

In which the fascist fringe (Turner, Kruse, any number of greased conservative lobbyists) is well represented, forever lathering at their pieholes over topics that have no bearing on their lives.

Indiana ... we could be something, if not for the right-wing doltery prevailing hereabouts.

Do we have an opposition party yet?

Indiana legislature unlikely to vote on same-sex marriage in 2013, by Mary Beth Schneider (Indy Star)

Those who want to see Indiana’s constitution amended to ban same-sex marriage may have to wait another year for the legislature to take its final vote on the issue.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, and Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said they will announce next week whether lawmakers will take up this issue now or wait until next year, after the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on the constitutionality of amendments passed in other states.

“No one’s said we’re not going to have a hearing,” Long said. “It’s when we’re going to have it.”

Said Bosma: “Personally, I think it’s inadvisable to move forward with the United States Supreme Court having the question before it, but I’m not making that decision by myself.”