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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT