IBJNews

Bosma ‘exploring options’ for marriage amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma said he’s “exploring all kinds of” options for moving a constitutional marriage amendment out of committee and onto the House floor.

The amendment – which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman – is currently stalled in the House Judiciary Committee where several of its 13 members haven’t said publicly how they’ll vote on the measure.

The committee took testimony on the amendment Monday but no vote is scheduled.

Bosma acknowledged he’s thought about replacing committee members or he could move the amendment to a different committee.

“I’m exploring all kinds of things,” he said. “I’m going to listen to our caucus.”

Indiana legislative rules give the speaker power to adjust committee members as he sees fit.

Bosma has previously replaced committee members between legislative sessions but never in the middle of one.

“You couldn’t change the numbers (of Republicans and Democrats) but the members serve at the pleasure of the speaker,” he said.

Bosma’s comments came shortly after Republican leaders saw the results of an internal poll on the issue. Bosma said the poll – conducted by Maryland-based Chesapeake Beach Consulting Inc. – found 80 percent of voters want the opportunity to cast a ballot on the question.

The group surveyed 800 people and the poll results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Bosma said the poll reinforced his support of both House Joint Resolution 3 and accompanying House Bill 1153, which describes legislative intent.

“The biggest take away for me was that 80 percent of Hoosiers want a vote on the issue. That means people on both sides of the issue would like to have the opportunity to speak on it,” he said.

The poll also found that 54 percent of Hoosiers want to take out the controversial second sentence of HJR 3, which bans any legal arrangement that is “identical or substantially similar” to marriage.

But 54 percent of people also said in the poll they would vote in favor of the amendment with the second sentence still in it.

Bosma said removing the sentence is not currently “Plan A.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • No Republican Leadership
    Republican state representatives that are pushing this Amendment can no longer claim they are representing the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility. Government being involved in personal decisions of marriage is not characteristic of limited government and the amount of time and money that will be wasted pursuing a discriminatory marriage ban is not fiscally responsible. In 17 States (and counting), committed gay couples are provided full marriage rights and have equal protections under the laws. Any rational person can reasonably conclude that full marriage equality is coming to Indiana (regardless if this Amendment moves forward). This attempt by Republicans to appease constituants that want to use Government to justify/promote their misguided religious beliefs is a disgrace.
  • What Year Is It?
    The state of Indiana is in the Stone Ages. The shift in this idea of same sex marriage has moved a long way forward just in the past few years. These are people committing themselves to one another. Straight people do this all the time with their spouse. Sometimes they do it twice, three times, four times, etc. So please do not talk about the "sanctity of marriage" straight people! We are all adults here and are turning the United States of America into the Divided States of America. Keep up the fight Freedomindiana.org. we are behind you 100% !
  • Really?
    Brian Bosma does not have even a passing acquaintance with the concept of integrity. But, that's nothing new. He needs to admit, since I'm sure even he can understand, that anyone, anywhere, can get a poll to back up what he/she wants. Which is precisely what he has done. Fiscal responsibility? No. He has done nothing other than to attempt to force his opinions and biases and prejudices on society at large. As a result, any further actions on his part will constitute legally appealable issues. And, when all is said and done, we can only hope that Bosma and his ilk are no longer PAID to wreak their anarchy on society...
  • The poll
    The company that did the poll is owned by a man who used to be the VP of a conservative poll company. And, while that's neither here nor there because both sides have partisan pollsters, it's interesting that Bosma has spent state money to conduct a specifically conservative poll on an issue that he should already know is a judicial loser. So much for fiscal restraint.
  • Survey
    I read an article where the pollster said Tate poll was done in 2014 the 2013 date was a mistype. Of course issuing a report that gets the poll dates wrong shows a lack of professionalism but of course everything done on this mater by Bosma and the discrimination cartel shows a lack of professionalism
  • Go For It
    Somewhat facetiously, I hope that Bosma takes the totally unprecedented step of replacing thoughtful politicians with those who goose-step to his personal biases and prejudices. As an attorney, even though I am not in private practice, I'll be right up there cheering this action as there will be no clearer path towards a flurry of lawsuits, and I will be providing whatever assistance that I can pro bono. He claims to be an attorney, but he certainly doesn't understand the law. And, standing behind an outdated poll from a "never heard of" polling entity? He is going to be under a microscope for everything he does on this, and he is not going to come out of this unscathed...
    • Bill
      I'm way more concerned about the effect on society of angry, misguided people like you than I am about two adults making the common, uncontroversial, private adult decision to be married.
    • It's a sad day
      when Hoosiers have to have their legislators vote on whether or not to allow dysfunctional behavior and aberrant 'unions' become 'legal'. Blind people can't get pilots licenses but do we have log jams in our legislature? No.
      • THE "POLL" IS A YEAR OLD!
        Why is there no mention that the poll is a year old?
        • Bosma
          Has Bosma yet given one single solitary reason that this needs to be in the state Constitution? It's divisive, demeaning and ultimately doomed to an expensive failure. And his highly-suspect CYA poll will do nothing to rescue his reputation as the architect of the whole debacle. He's a lawyer, I thought they understood the law.
        • Poll company owner?
          This looks like it might be the LinkedIn profile for the polling company owner. Looks like he started his own company after previously working for a long time at another polling company, American Viewpoint. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-carpenter/11/852/437
        • Shame on the media
          Shame on the media (that includes you IBJ) for not digging deeper into this "poll." Who exactly is this polling company (no website)? Who was polled? When did the polling take place? Why was no one in Bloomington polled?
        • 80 percent???
          Eighty percent really surprises me. I can't believe that 80% truly supports or opposes this measure. This does give Bosma an easy out, if so many people truly want the opportunity to vote. As for me, I think the whole thing is venal. All the money that will be spent trying to persuade me is wasted money. I don't support the hatred this legislation promotes. And, oh, if it means anything, I am a heterosexual who believes in equal opportunity.
        • I'm sorry....
          ... but Brian Bosma is completely incompetent and an embarrassment to the State of Indiana. His whole thought process, at this point, is baffling. Let's get this right.... I CHOSE these people because I thought they would help to pass this discriminatory legislation. They've listed to their constituents and, hopefully, their hearts, and have had a change of opinion that may affect my ability to legislate discrimination into our constitution. I should probably replace them, quickly, with others who I feel are still bigoted enough to actually push this thing through. Both sides of this controversial and divisive issue can then spend millions upon millions of dollars trying to convince voters of this state on what their vote should be in a very costly referendum. Whether equality and fairness win out now or a year from now, after a vote and / or an overturning by the courts, they WILL win out eventually. The decisions of our Supreme Court last summer have all but guaranteed this. All the effort, time, money and hate will prove to have been for naught. Wake up Bosma and the rest of you "Legislators" who would have this state look even more backwards than it already does to many in this country!
        • Suspect Poll
          I'd like the details on this poll. Where was it conducted, how were people notified about it? What was the sampling of respondents' ages? You see, a poll sounds good on the surface, but if that poll was announced through specific medias and specific ways, you can really skew the results. If it was shown as an ad on Fox 59's webpage, for example, the chances of getting any Democrat respondents is next to zero. If it was emailed, again, who was it emailed to? If it was a phone call, again, what list are they working with? You can pay to have a poll come up with whatever results you want. Having been in the position to do exactly that for a PR firm in the city, I can tell you that this kind of thing happens all the time. As well, if 54 percent are in favor of leaving in the 'controversial sentence", how can 54 percent also be AGAINST leaving the sentence in? That data conflicts with itself. Polls show nothing except what the buyer of the poll wants and are yet another flagrant example of the state government wasting money. The law already forbids marriage equality, why not just let that ride until the federal government allows for equality. It's going to happen anyway, so what is the point of legislating useless words?
        • No precedent
          The key here is removing/replacing someone during a session, I have not found a precedent nor IC Code The IC Code is clear that SOH duties is appointing members… and it is also clear the committee members must be named within a certain number of days. (he did for 118th and it is past already)

        Post a comment to this story

        COMMENTS POLICY
        We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
         
        You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
         
        Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
         
        No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
         
        We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
         

        Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

        Sponsored by
        ADVERTISEMENT

        facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

        Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
        Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
         
        Subscribe to IBJ
        1. As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.

        2. The free market will seek its own level. If Employers cannot hire a retain good employees in Marion Co they will leave and set up shop in adjacent county. Marion Co already suffers from businesses leaving I would think this would encourage more of the same.

        3. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

        4. One option is to redistribute the payroll tax already collected by the State. A greater share could be allocated to the county of the workplace location as opposed to the county of residency. Not a new tax, just re-allocate what is currently collected.

        5. Have to agree with Mal Burgess. The biggest problem is massive family breakdown in these neighborhoods. While there are a lot of similiarities, there is a MASSIVE difference between 46218 and 46219. 46219 is diluted by some stable areas, and that's probably where the officers live. Incentivizing is fine, but don't criticize officers for choosing not to live in these neighbor hoods. They have to have a break from what is arguably one of the highest stress job in the land. And you'll have to give me hard evidence that putting officers there is going to make a significant difference. Solid family units, responsible fathers, siblings with the same fathers, engaged parents, commitment to education, respect for the rule of law and the importance of work/a job. If the families and the schools (and society) will support these, THEN we can make a difference.

        ADVERTISEMENT