IBJOpinion

PELATH: Push the marriage amendment at the economy's peril

November 2, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

PelathQuestion: Should the 2014 General Assembly pass the proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage and put the question to voters in a referendum?

Note: IBJ was unable to find a Republican willing to respond to the question.

Answer:
For those who can still bear to look, Indiana’s unemployment rate remains stuck above 8 percent.

This fall, Ball State University released a report on Indiana’s frighteningly suppressed individual earnings.

Our consumers’ wages are 14 years behind our fellow Americans. We beat few states outside of the Old Confederacy in per-capita income. The average Hoosier earns barely $34,000 a year from all sources.

Our nation has not done well over the last decade. Indiana has done worse.

Hoosiers yearn for a common-sense economic agenda for middle-class consumers, workers and other profit creators. So what economic issue is predetermined to dominate the next session of the Legislature?

An ugly and divisive ban on marriage equality.

Everywhere, folks are letting out a collective groan over what is to come.

Cheered on by Gov. Mike Pence, both House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate chief David Long have pledged a vote in the 2014 session. With Republican super-majorities in both chambers, a heated statewide referendum on the topic is likely to follow. Once again, politicians will inflame their own people’s moral and philosophical differences just in time for the next election.

Make no mistake, though. The proposed ban on marriage equality is a bold economic policy—a boldly destructive one.

You see, those same Ball State researchers identified one strategy that was most likely to raise our per-capita income and overall quality of life: Retain and recruit high-income workers.

“To reduce the income gap between the state and the nation, Indiana must focus on both retaining many more high-income Hoosiers and attracting many more affluent households,” declared the report.

Instead, state leaders are already telling the world that talented and productive gay citizens are not quite welcome in Indiana. Eli Lilly, Cummins, our hospitals and our universities must sheepishly explain to proudly brilliant workers why Indiana winces at their presence.

There are more negatives, of course. But forget the embarrassment of Indiana straining against Americans’ growing acceptance of their fellow citizens. Or that the proposed same-sex marriage ban is poorly crafted and fraught with unintended consequences. Or that it will short-circuit energy away from what truly ails us.

The amendment is no longer just about cultural disagreements. If enshrined in our state’s highest document, it will become our latest economic failure.

As of now, there is little encouragement that the legislative super-majorities will exercise restraint. Although now more circumspect, Speaker Bosma once called it “the most critical piece of the people’s business” and is ready to vote.

Pence has been clear he wants the measure on the 2014 ballot. Long plainly announced, “I fully anticipate both the Senate and House will be voting on the amendment next session.”

Rank-and-file lawmakers also must remain on guard for unhappy social conservatives. Hesitant Republicans have to quake at potential primary challenges.

The good news is, although my friends across the aisle may be stuck, the voters can still save them.

And as moderates, independents and libertarian Republicans reflect on what is best for Indiana’s economic future, I suspect they may well rescue the Legislature from itself. Which will be a favor to all of us.•

__________

Pelath, Indiana House of Representatives minority leader, is a Democrat from Michigan City representing the 9th District. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Once a Marion Co. commuter tax is established, I'm moving my organization out of Indianapolis. Face it, with the advancement in technology, it's getting more cost effective to have people work out of their homes. The clock is running out on the need for much of the office space in Indianapolis. Establishing a commuter tax will only advance the hands of the clock and the residents of Indianapolis will be left to clean up the mess they created on their own, with much less resources.

  2. The 2013 YE financial indicates the City of Indianapolis has over $2 B in assets and net position of $362.7 M. All of these assets have been created and funded by taxpayers. In 2013 they took in $806 M in revenues. Again, all from tax payers. Think about this, Indianapolis takes in $800 M per year and they do not have enough money? The premise that government needs more money for services is false.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT