Dan Canon discusses the marriage equality case, 5 years on. Now is it the turn for racial justice?

Dan Canon's column in LEO Weekly last week. Click the link, read it all. We're very fortunate to have Dan, Valerie and their kids in the neighborhood.

Marriage equality case 5 years later: Can that victory be replicated for racial justice?

 ... My naiveté served me well. We went to the Supreme Court in 2015. We won.

I got my feather and hung it on my wall. Our clients, and millions of other people, can get married. I’ve been to lots of weddings over the last five years. I’ve even officiated a few. It feels good.

I suppose it’s for the best that I didn’t recognize then what I see clearly now: Of all the ways to try to bring about social change, filing a lawsuit and leaving it to a judge in the Midwest, or the South, or anywhere, is among the worst. As evidence, I offer a detail that is often lost in the retelling of the marriage cases: We lost. We lost in the court of appeals on our way to the Supreme Court. We lost in the court that presides over Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee. We lost in a court that hears hundreds of cases every year on police misconduct, inmates’ rights, immigration detention, free speech, abortion and every other hot-button issue anyone has ever cared about. We lost, just like the national organizations said we would. We lost, just like everyone loses. And since the Supreme Court takes so few cases, losing at that court is the end of the line for most people seeking to make change through what we think of as proper, respectable channels.

By the time we lost in the lower court, pro-marriage activists were accustomed to losing legal battles ...

 ... For now, I’ll celebrate our surprising win in an institution designed to make losers. I’ll celebrate the marriages of Tim and Larry, Greg and Michael, Kim and Tammy, Maurice and Dominique, Paul and Randy, and Luke and Jimmy. And even as the buzzards circle the great bird that gave me my defunct quill, I’ll celebrate what the marriage case stands for: The hope that the mythology of American equality can be realized, even if we don’t quite know the recipe for it.

This one's worth a good joyful, soulful cry.

Now, back to work.

“Hope will never be silent" -- except, of course, when Dan Coffey endlessly bloviates.

Ireland? It gets an Equality Minister.

New Albany? We get the Ayatollah Coffey.

The news wire is filled with gratifying reports from Ireland, as here: "Ireland becomes first country to legalise gay marriage by popular vote."

Meanwhile, I cannot find any local news coverage of last Thursday's city council meeting, when Coffey sought to ratify his new part-time job as invocation coordinator.

"The Here and Now of Same-Sex Marriage."

It was educational and entertaining to read Joe Dunman's and Dan Canon's tweets yesterday, as SCOTUS heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Commentary abounds, but I think this one summarizes the situation.

The Here and Now of Same-Sex Marriage, by Amy Davidson (New Yorker)

Why now? And why are we the ones who should make the decision? Those were the questions that the four conservative Justices on the Supreme Court and, to an extent, the presumed swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, asked early on in the oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that has the potential to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in all fifty states. Both questions, though, were overtaken by third: What about the children? And, in debating that, at the end of two and a half hours of back and forth, it sounded like marriage equality was headed for a win ...

SCOTUS Friday: "Historic day for gay rights?"

It was one of my favorite stories from last year.

Pence takes to his bunker as Indiana's gay marriage ban is ruled to be unconstitutional.

More recently, IL's Joe Dunman set the stage for SCOTUS.

Dunman: "Supreme Court should approach same-sex marriage issue from a contemporary constitutional perspective."

Now we'll see.

Conceivable outcomes causing the Pence Shirts to squirm are the best ones, aren't they?

Historic day for gay rights?, by Lyle Denniston (National Constitution Center)

Sometime Friday, probably before noon, the Supreme Court is due to have a conversation about gay rights, discussing whether to open what could be the final judicial chapter on same-sex marriage. The Justices will not be deciding that question; rather, the issue before them tomorrow is whether it is now time to decide.

Dunman: "Supreme Court should approach same-sex marriage issue from a contemporary constitutional perspective."

I've been linking quite often to Joe Dunman. As noted previously, It's gotten to the point that when I see Joe Dunman's name on the IL mailing, I just click through to read whatever he's written, irrespective of the topic.

"Property values weren’t magically determined by some invisible hand of the market, but by a concerted effort of people and policy to enforce racial segregation."

Thanks to motorized oligarchs like Kerry Stemler, "We still pursue an elusive automobile paradise like a swamp-lost Conquistador seeking the Fountain of Youth."

"Controversial new bike lanes" in Louisville prompt bold new displays of automotive dumbassery.

"The lesson to learn from Hobby Lobby is that employers shouldn’t be in the business of providing health care to their employees."

Southern Indiana same-sex marriage suit a suitable counterpoint to Pence's Brown Suits.

Here is the most recent. Steel-toed boot, meet egg.

Joe Dunman: Supreme Court should approach same-sex marriage issue from a contemporary constitutional perspective (Insider Louisville)

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit became the first federal appeals court to uphold the prohibition of same-sex marriage since a tide of challenges were filed in the wake of United States v. Windsor in 2013. Three months after hearing oral arguments in six total cases from all four states in the Circuit — Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky — the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the states ...

... As Americans, we value tradition. But some American traditions, such as slavery, racial segregation and the disenfranchisement of women and minorities, still linger in our legal history. Because of them, it is dangerous to rely too heavily on the past to decide constitutional questions that face us today. It is my personal hope that the Supreme Court will approach same-sex marriage from a more contemporary constitutional perspective.

Rick Fox on marriage (in)equality: "The only people that benefit from this situation are the lawyers."

Really?

Lawyers benefit from things like this?

Speaking of which, how many different governmental agencies has Rick Fox represented, sometimes simultaneously?

Did you see how I didn't use the word "competently"?

As a side note, given that Bill Hanson now has you clicking twice in order to read whole documents, do you think this is intended to double the ad exposure?

I wonder how much traffic I've sent to be monitored by Hanson's ad-sniffers these last ten years?

I wonder if I've ever once been given credit down in Montgomery for doing so?

Notice all the questions I'm asking?

But there isn't any question that marriage equality ranks up there among the most basic of human rights and freedoms, those of which the likes of Rick Fox, Greg Zoeller and Mike Pence are determined to remain unaware.

Don't worry. They're on the wrong side of history, and with the passing of time, it will become increasingly obvious.

And rectified.

FOX: A measured take on gay marriage, by Rick Fox (Government Lawyerin' Cheap)

... I advised the clerk not to issue marriage licenses until I had an opportunity to review what was going on. I told the News and Tribune that I needed to review what was going on before I could advise Floyd County regarding this matter.

Pence takes to his bunker as Indiana's gay marriage ban is ruled to be unconstitutional.

Meanwhile last evening, the N and T reported that the home county of Indiana's attorney general would grudgingly accede to modernity.

Duh -- of course Greg Zoeller will argue against it. That's what he's paid to do, but what's worth remembering that he's in the employ of a dullard governor who represents the narrow interests of the GOP fundamentalist cabal. Zoeller's merely a hired hand in this instance, although there is a precedent of sorts for principle over ideology. Anyone remember Indianapolis native William Ruckelshaus?

Weddings begin as judge throws out Indiana's same-sex marriage ban, by Jill Disis and Cara Anthony (Indy Star)

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Indiana's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, immediately allowing same-sex couples across the state to receive marriage licenses.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young did not issue a stay on his ruling. However, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Zoeller, whose office represented the state, said they "will quickly ask for a stay of today's ruling pending appeal."

Ron Grooms touts his tenure, forgets to take credit for his vote against same-sex marriage.

Southern Indiana same-sex marriage suit a suitable counterpoint to Pence's Brown Suits.

Nice phrase, this: "v. Pence," with a certain poetic justice to it. The fact that Southern Indiana couples are taking the lead is even more delicious, given we just had to endure the governor's prattling to the suited pre-oligarchy "leadership" cadres.

TAKING THE FIGHT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY TO THE HOOSIER STATE, by Joe Dunman (L. Joe Dunman, Attorney at Law)

Today, four same-sex couples from Indiana filed suit in federal court against the Governor of their state, challenging its discriminatory marriage laws which prevent them from getting married or from being recognized as already validly married. The suit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The case will be called Love, et al. v. Pence.

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

At GAW News: "Indiana falling behind in the Anti-Gay HATING Game."

If you are allergic to impenetrable satire, avoid this link.

If not, join us in firing Ron Grooms this November. Perhaps he can retire to Arizona?

Indiana falling behind in the Anti-Gay HATING Game.

It’s always something!! Just when Goliath getting OH SO SMUG and happy about how Indiana done gone and pass it’s own law to put Anti Gay marriage on the ballet to weld onto the Constitutional, Just when Steve Stemler getting ready to do some HIGH FIVES with good Old Senator RON GROOMS who finally come out with the ANTI GAY CROWD (of which Goliath a PROUD hand holding member) JUS when GoliaTH ABOUT TO write a big fancy full research BOASTING article about how great and Anti Gay Indiana is on the Gawnews……. Along come some other dad blasted State to STEAL INDIANA’s THuNDER!!! Going all “We’re MORE anti-gay than YOU are Indiana!!!

That’s right…Arizona which is apparently some dusty barren god farsaken blasted landscape of a place…hotter than HELL and dry as an old bone STATE that nobody even think about wanting to visit…. ARIZONA now come out with a New and Clever ANTI GAY law what say that anybody running a dad blasted bidness is FREE to kick Gays out on their ASS.

You heard it ! Walk into a bar wearing designer clothes or something and the bartender look at you and say ”Get the EFF out of here you Gay Sumbitch!!!” AND THE LAW ON THE SIDE OF BARTENDER!!! HA HA HA!!!

Keep

reading

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

"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

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 ...

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.

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.