How The Marriage Amendment Could Affect Same-Sex Benefits
Articles,  Blog

How The Marriage Amendment Could Affect Same-Sex Benefits


NEWSDESK.”
GOVERNOR MIKE PENCE WANTS GOVERNOR MIKE PENCE WANTS
LAWMAKERS TO END THE DEBATE OVER LAWMAKERS TO END THE DEBATE OVER
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THIS YEAR. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THIS YEAR.
IN HIS STATE OF THE STATE IN HIS STATE OF THE STATE
ADDRESS THIS WEEK THE GOVERNOR ADDRESS THIS WEEK THE GOVERNOR
ASKED FOR A CIVIL CONVERSATION. ASKED FOR A CIVIL CONVERSATION.
>>LET’S HAVE A DEBATE WORTHY OF>>LET’S HAVE A DEBATE WORTHY OF
OUR PEOPLE WITH CIVILITY AND OUR PEOPLE WITH CIVILITY AND
RESPECT. RESPECT.
LET’S PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF LET’S PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF
HOOSIER EMPLOYERS TO HIRE WHO HOOSIER EMPLOYERS TO HIRE WHO
THEY WANT AND PROVIDE THEM WITH THEY WANT AND PROVIDE THEM WITH
THE BENEFITS THAT THEY DESERVE. THE BENEFITS THAT THEY DESERVE.
AND THEN LET’S RESOLVE THIS AND THEN LET’S RESOLVE THIS
ISSUE. ISSUE.
THIS YEAR. THIS YEAR.
ONCE AND FOR ALL. >>JASHIN LIN REPORTS FROM THE
STATE HOUSE WHERE CONCERNS OVER STATE HOUSE WHERE CONCERNS OVER
THE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS THE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT ARE DOMINATING THE AMENDMENT ARE DOMINATING THE
DEBATE. DEBATE.
>>WHEN BLOOMINGTON RESIDENT >>WHEN BLOOMINGTON RESIDENT
ELLEN EPSTEIN CONTEMPLATED THE ELLEN EPSTEIN CONTEMPLATED THE
IDEA OF MARRYING HER PARTNER, IDEA OF MARRYING HER PARTNER,
HER FIRST REACTION WAS, NO. HER FIRST REACTION WAS, NO.
I THINK IT’S VERY I THINK IT’S VERY
HETERONORMATIVE, AND I DON’T HETERONORMATIVE, AND I DON’T
LIKE HOW WOMEN ARE VIEWED. LIKE HOW WOMEN ARE VIEWED.
I DON’T EVEN LIKE THE WORD I DON’T EVEN LIKE THE WORD
“WIFE” AND “HUSBAND” FOR THE “WIFE” AND “HUSBAND” FOR THE
MEANING THAT THAT CARRIES. MEANING THAT THAT CARRIES.
>>BUT HER PARTNER WANTED TO PUT>>BUT HER PARTNER WANTED TO PUT
EPSTEIN ON HER HEALTH INSURANCE EPSTEIN ON HER HEALTH INSURANCE
PLAN, WHICH INCLUDED A PLAN, WHICH INCLUDED A
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT – WHICH HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT – WHICH
REQUIRED THAT THE TWO BE REQUIRED THAT THE TWO BE
MARRIED. MARRIED.
>>SO AGAIN, THE FIRST REACTION >>SO AGAIN, THE FIRST REACTION
TO IT WAS PISSING ME OFF, MAKING TO IT WAS PISSING ME OFF, MAKING
ME ANGRY THAT, YOU KNOW, I FEEL ME ANGRY THAT, YOU KNOW, I FEEL
KIND OF BEING TOLD KIND OF HOW I KIND OF BEING TOLD KIND OF HOW I
HAVE TO BE IN MY RELATIONSHIP. HAVE TO BE IN MY RELATIONSHIP.
AND THEN I SAID, OKAY, LET’S DO AND THEN I SAID, OKAY, LET’S DO
IT. IT.
IT WAS ABOUT THAT FAST. IT WAS ABOUT THAT FAST.
>>IN DECEMBER 2013, THE PAIR >>IN DECEMBER 2013, THE PAIR
HEADED OFF TO VERMONT, WHERE HEADED OFF TO VERMONT, WHERE
THEY HAD A FRIEND READY TO THEY HAD A FRIEND READY TO
OFFICIATE THE CEREMONY AND WHERE OFFICIATE THE CEREMONY AND WHERE
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE HAD BEEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE HAD BEEN
LEGALIZED IN 2009. LEGALIZED IN 2009.
THEY CALL EACH OTHER THEIR THEY CALL EACH OTHER THEIR
SPOUSE, BUT HERE IN INDIANA, SPOUSE, BUT HERE IN INDIANA,
STATE LAW DOESN’T RECOGNIZE STATE LAW DOESN’T RECOGNIZE
THEIR MARRIAGE. THEIR MARRIAGE.
LAW WENT INTO THE BOOKS IN 2004 LAW WENT INTO THE BOOKS IN 2004
– BUT NOW THE STAKES ARE EVEN – BUT NOW THE STAKES ARE EVEN
HIGHER, BECAUSE OF HOUSE JOINT HIGHER, BECAUSE OF HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 3. RESOLUTION 3.
HJR3 IS AN A PROPOSED HJR3 IS AN A PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE
STATE CONSTITUTION, WHICH STATE CONSTITUTION, WHICH
READS: VOTERS WILL DECIDE ON WHETHER
HJR3 IS HEADED TO THE BALLOT IN HJR3 IS HEADED TO THE BALLOT IN
NOVEMBER FOR VOTERS TO DECIDE ON NOVEMBER FOR VOTERS TO DECIDE ON
IF IT MAKES IT THROUGH THIS IF IT MAKES IT THROUGH THIS
LEGISLATIVE SESSION. LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
WHILE THE BILL PASSED WITH EASE WHILE THE BILL PASSED WITH EASE
THROUGH THE INDIANA LEGISLATURE THROUGH THE INDIANA LEGISLATURE
BACK IN 2011 AS PART OF THE BACK IN 2011 AS PART OF THE
AMENDMENT PROCESS, THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROCESS, THE SECOND
ROUND IS LESS CERTAIN. ROUND IS LESS CERTAIN.
ON ONE SIDE ARE THE SUPPORTERS. ON ONE SIDE ARE THE SUPPORTERS.
A GROUP OF THEM TRAVELED TO THE A GROUP OF THEM TRAVELED TO THE
STATEHOUSE THIS WEEK TO JOIN THE STATEHOUSE THIS WEEK TO JOIN THE
CROWD AT THE FIRST CROWD AT THE FIRST
COMMITTEE HEARING FOR HJR3. COMMITTEE HEARING FOR HJR3.
THEY CAST THE NEED FOR THE THEY CAST THE NEED FOR THE
AMENDMENT AS A DEMOCRATIC AND AMENDMENT AS A DEMOCRATIC AND
MORAL ISSUE. MORAL ISSUE.
>>IT’S A PASSIONATE ISSUE. >>IT’S A PASSIONATE ISSUE.
THERE’S A COUPLE PASSIONATE THERE’S A COUPLE PASSIONATE
ISSUES, BUT THIS IS ISSUES, BUT THIS IS
DEFINING FAMILIES. DEFINING FAMILIES.
THIS IS DEFINING OUR WAY OF THIS IS DEFINING OUR WAY OF
LIFE. LIFE.
THIS IS DEFINING WHAT CHILDREN – THIS IS DEFINING WHAT CHILDREN –
THE ATMOSPHERE CHILDREN ARE THE ATMOSPHERE CHILDREN ARE
GOING TO GROW UP IN. GOING TO GROW UP IN.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST THIS IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST
ISSUE EVER BECAUSE THIS IS GOING ISSUE EVER BECAUSE THIS IS GOING
AGAINST BIBLICAL TRUTHS. >>ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RING
ARE THE OPPONENTS, LED BY A ARE THE OPPONENTS, LED BY A
RELATIVELY NEW GROUP CALLED RELATIVELY NEW GROUP CALLED
FREEDOM INDIANA. FREEDOM INDIANA.
THEY’VE BEEN ACTIVE IN THEY’VE BEEN ACTIVE IN
RECRUITING CORPORATIONS AND RECRUITING CORPORATIONS AND
UNIVERSITIES. UNIVERSITIES.
>>IT JEOPARDIZES OUR ABILITY TO>>IT JEOPARDIZES OUR ABILITY TO
BE COMPETITIVE IN GLOBAL MARKETS BE COMPETITIVE IN GLOBAL MARKETS
AND TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN TOP AND TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN TOP
TALENT TO OUR COMPANY. TALENT TO OUR COMPANY.
>>OPPONENTS ARE ALSO FOCUSING >>OPPONENTS ARE ALSO FOCUSING
ON THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE ON THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THEY SAY THAT IT’S TOO VAGUE AND
COULD THREATEN SAME-SEX BENEFITS COULD THREATEN SAME-SEX BENEFITS
OFFERED BY COMPANIES AND OFFERED BY COMPANIES AND
UNIVERSITIES CURRENTLY OFFER, UNIVERSITIES CURRENTLY OFFER,
OR EVEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR EVEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PROTECTIONS. PROTECTIONS.
HERE’S WHERE THE DEBATE GETS HERE’S WHERE THE DEBATE GETS
MUDDLED. MUDDLED.
REPUBLICANS INTRODUCED A NEW REPUBLICANS INTRODUCED A NEW
BILL, HOUSE BILL 1153, AS A BILL, HOUSE BILL 1153, AS A
“COMPANION BILL” TO HJR3, “COMPANION BILL” TO HJR3,
INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE
AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC TURNER SAYS REPRESENTATIVE ERIC TURNER SAYS
THAT OPPONENTS’ CONCERNS ABOUT THAT OPPONENTS’ CONCERNS ABOUT
THAT SECOND SENTENCE ARE THAT SECOND SENTENCE ARE
UNWARRANTED. UNWARRANTED.
>>THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DOES >>THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DOES
NOT TAKE AWAY OR IN ANY WAY NOT TAKE AWAY OR IN ANY WAY
CHANGE ELI LILLY’S OR CHANGE ELI LILLY’S OR
INDIANA UNIVERSITY’S, OR ANY INDIANA UNIVERSITY’S, OR ANY
OTHER EMPLOYER, PUBLIC OR OTHER EMPLOYER, PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE, THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE PRIVATE, THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE
HEALTHCARE BENEFITS TO THEIR HEALTHCARE BENEFITS TO THEIR
EMPLOYEES AND WHOEVER THEY WANT EMPLOYEES AND WHOEVER THEY WANT
TO ALLOW EMPLOYEES TO TO ALLOW EMPLOYEES TO
INCLUDE ON THEIR HEALTH PLAN. INCLUDE ON THEIR HEALTH PLAN.
>>BOTH SIDES HAVE PRODUCED >>BOTH SIDES HAVE PRODUCED
ARGUMENTS ON THE ARGUMENTS ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HJR3 BASED CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HJR3 BASED
ON THAT SECOND SENTENCE. ON THAT SECOND SENTENCE.
TESTIMONY AT MONDAY’S HEARING TESTIMONY AT MONDAY’S HEARING
WENT MORE THAN FOUR HOURS, WENT MORE THAN FOUR HOURS,
LONGER THAN THE TIME ALLOTTED. LONGER THAN THE TIME ALLOTTED.
CHAIRMAN GREG STEUERWALD DECIDED CHAIRMAN GREG STEUERWALD DECIDED
TO END THE HEARING WITHOUT TO END THE HEARING WITHOUT
VOTING ON THE BILL, SAYING HE VOTING ON THE BILL, SAYING HE
WANTED TO GIVE LEGISLATORS TIME WANTED TO GIVE LEGISLATORS TIME
TO WEIGH THE TESTIMONY – TO WEIGH THE TESTIMONY –
AT LEAST UNTIL NEXT WEEK. AT LEAST UNTIL NEXT WEEK.
>>I BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS >>I BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS
BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
BUT WITH THIS PARTICULAR PIECE BUT WITH THIS PARTICULAR PIECE
OF LEGISLATION HAD CONCERNS OVER OF LEGISLATION HAD CONCERNS OVER
THE SECOND SENTENCE, AND OTHERS THE SECOND SENTENCE, AND OTHERS
HAVE AS WELL, AND I CONTINUE TO HAVE AS WELL, AND I CONTINUE TO
DIGEST THE INFORMATION I DIGEST THE INFORMATION I
RECEIVED YESTERDAY TO TRY TO PAY RECEIVED YESTERDAY TO TRY TO PAY
ATTENTION TO HOW THAT WOULD ATTENTION TO HOW THAT WOULD
AFFECT US. AFFECT US.
>>MEANWHILE, THE FIGHT OUTSIDE >>MEANWHILE, THE FIGHT OUTSIDE
THE STATEHOUSE RAGES ON THE STATEHOUSE RAGES ON
>>LET ME VOTE! >>LET ME VOTE!
CONSERVATIVE GROUP ADVANCE CONSERVATIVE GROUP ADVANCE
AMERICA HAS BOUGHT TV ADS URGING AMERICA HAS BOUGHT TV ADS URGING
VOTERS TO ENCOURAGE THEIR VOTERS TO ENCOURAGE THEIR
LEGISLATORS TO VOTE YES – WHILE LEGISLATORS TO VOTE YES – WHILE
FREEDOM INDIANA VOLUNTEERS ARE FREEDOM INDIANA VOLUNTEERS ARE
TAKING A GRASSROOTS APPROACH – TAKING A GRASSROOTS APPROACH –
WORKING WORK THE PHONE BANKS WORKING WORK THE PHONE BANKS
URGING VOTERS TO DO THE URGING VOTERS TO DO THE
OPPOSITE. OPPOSITE.
ELLEN EPSTEIN’S PARTNER, JANE ELLEN EPSTEIN’S PARTNER, JANE
ROGAN, SAYS THAT’S WHAT’S ROGAN, SAYS THAT’S WHAT’S
DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS YEAR’S DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS YEAR’S
FIGHT. FIGHT.
>>THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE >>THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE
WHO KNOW GAY PEOPLE WHO REALIZE WHO KNOW GAY PEOPLE WHO REALIZE
THIS AMENDMENT WILL HURT THIS AMENDMENT WILL HURT
THEIR FRIENDS. THEIR FRIENDS.
AND I THINK THAT’S THE STRONGEST AND I THINK THAT’S THE STRONGEST
MESSAGE YOU CAN SEND. MESSAGE YOU CAN SEND.
IF IT’S JUST SIMPLY PEOPLE LIKE IF IT’S JUST SIMPLY PEOPLE LIKE
ME AND ELLEN SAYING, NO, THIS IS ME AND ELLEN SAYING, NO, THIS IS
BAD FOR ME AND ELLEN, THEN IT’S BAD FOR ME AND ELLEN, THEN IT’S
NOT GOING TO GET NOT GOING TO GET
MUCH TRACTION. MUCH TRACTION.
IT’S THOSE PEOPLE WHO I THINK IT’S THOSE PEOPLE WHO I THINK
OVER TIME WHO ARE GOING TO BE OVER TIME WHO ARE GOING TO BE
THE ONES THAT CHANGE PEOPLE’S THE ONES THAT CHANGE PEOPLE’S
MINDS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *