IBJNews

Kittle: Gay marriage talks misstated by Bosma

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former chairman of the Indiana Republican Party said Tuesday that he never promised "unlimited" campaign funds to make the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage go away, but rather offered to support lawmakers if they opposed the ban.

Jim Kittle, a prolific fundraiser in Indiana Republican circles, said he twice met with and tried to convince House Speaker Brian Bosma that the ban shouldn't be considered this session but that he never offered unlimited funds. Bosma has repeatedly said he was offered unlimited money in the heat of the debate if he would pull the issue from consideration, but he has refused to say who made the offer.

Kittle, who opposed the ban, told The Associated Press that he met with the legislative leader at Bosma's law office, once before the session and again shortly after the session started. He said Bosma expressed concerns that some House Republicans could face strong primary election fights if they opposed the ban.

"To offer support to individual legislators if they do happen to get primaried or they're running certainly is not illegal, immoral or anything else," Kittle said. "I respect the fact that Brian's got himself kind of in a jam here. He misjudged what was happening, period, on this."

At the start of the fight in January, Bosma said he had rejected an offer of "unlimited" funds to make the ban "go away." He said at the time that he was concerned it might violate state and federal law.

But, last week, Bosma said he believed nothing criminal was meant by the offer. Bosma spokeswoman Tory Flynn declined comment Tuesday, referring to Bosma's comments last week.

Indiana lawmakers approved an altered version of the proposed amendment this year, meaning it won't make the November ballot. In Indiana, a proposed constitutional amendment must twice be approved by the Legislature, unchanged and in consecutive legislative sessions, in order to appear on the ballot.

The move marked a surprise victory for opponents of the gay-marriage ban just three years after lawmakers overwhelmingly supported the ban.

Kittle played a key role in helping find support for Freedom Indiana, the umbrella group which successfully kept the marriage ban off the November ballot.

The National Organization for Marriage, a national group opposing gay marriage, requested an investigation by Attorney General Greg Zoeller in a letter sent Tuesday.

"The only way to determine if a crime has been committed is to conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation into the matter and report the findings publicly," the group's chairman, John Eastman, wrote.

Zoeller spokesman Bryan Corbin said his office had not seen the request yet, but noted that the assertions made by the group would not fall under the jurisdiction of the attorney general.

Kittle, the owner of the Kittle's Furniture retail chain, was state GOP chairman from 2002 to 2006.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • definition
    since you have determined that the definition of marriage can be redefined ... I presume you would be OK if 3 committed gays and/or 3 committed lesbians decided to "get married"? After all ... marriage is whatever someone wants to define it as...
  • Stop that!
    Dear Preston, Jim F....please stop trying to apply logic when debating with Lee...Lee's tossing around of the terms "moral" and "natural" is code for "you are immoral and unnatural if you don't think exactly the way I do"...no matter how many ways you go about it, you can never convince people like Lee that they are wrong, because he prefers his uninformed viewpoint to your more enlightened, less judgemental one. Facts and logic only confuse the issue for him, so he won't consider them for long, if at all. “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ? Isaac Asimov
  • Can We Simply Send Kittle and Bosma to Another State, How About Arizona?
    Lee - Morality is not defined by ones' sexuality. Indiana needs to move away from the marriage amendment and repeal the marriage law and move into at least the 20th century.
  • Dear Lee...
    Based upon your argument, could you please expound on what, exactly, should happen to those straight couples who are either unwilling or unable to "procreate"? For example, I was adopted since my mother (OK, adopted mother) was unable to conceive. Logically, then, following your thought processes, if a couple is unable or unwilling to bring forth a child from their conjugal coupling, they should not receive all of the benefits of marriage??? Just asking...
    • So the delay will allow the liberals to Winn by continually beating on the doors of legally and forever permanently not recognizing gay marriage
      The problem is that legislation against gay marriage in Indiana is not permanent. The excuse is monetary and not moral and that only a man and woman can be married and same sex is not natural. If it were they could propagate naturally which they cannot. Aside from adoption or artificial means they cannot produce children which means it is not natural.

      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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

      2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

      3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

      4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

      5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

      ADVERTISEMENT