STOP THE AMENDMENT!
SJR-7, the proposed marriage equality amendment to the Indiana State Constitution, was passed by the Senate and is now in the House. If passed by the House, it will be on the ballot for public vote in 2008. We need to stop it now!!!
Our GLBT family members and friends just can't do this alone. They desperately need the help of straight allies. We need to do everything we can to prevent this blatant discrimination against our loved ones.
It's time to write letters - to the editors of our local papers and to our elected officials. Our PFLAG goal is to get as many people as we can to write letters to legislators. Send a Letter to Your Friends and ask others to help.
On Monday, March 12, SJR-7 was assigned to the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee for debate. This is where the decision is made whether to ignore the bill, change it or pass it out as is. Chairman of this committee is Rep. Scott Pelath (D-Michigan City). He's scheduled the first hearing for Wed., March 21st at 9am. Please contact Rep. Pelath and let him know that you oppose this discriminatory amendment. If your State Rep. is on the committee, make sure they know how you feel. It's vitally important that we let these committee members hear from us right away.
Send a hand written (or hand addressed) letter to chairman Pelath as soon as you can. If you're in one of the other committee member's districts, write to them, too. Email is the least effective option, but it's still better than nothing at all. Please try to engage your friends and family, too - especially if they're in these specific house districts.
Committee Members
Scott Pelath (D-Michigan City), Chair
Russ Stilwell (D-Boonville), Vice-Chair
Matt Whetstone (R-Brownsburg), Ranking Minority member
Terri Austin (D-Anderson)
Earl Harris (D-East Chicago)
Dennie Oxley (D-English)
Randy L. Borror (R-Fort Wayne)
Robert Kuzman (D-Crown Point)
Eric Turner (R-Marion)
Ralph Foley (R-Martinsville)
First, find out Who is my State Representative?
This will also give links to their website and e-mail.
Then address your letter to
Rep. _________________
Indiana House of Representatives
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204 - 2786An alternative is to send the letter to your representative's home address.
Make an extra copy of whatever you write and send it to the House Speaker, Representative Pat Bauer, at the above address. He needs to hear from all of us! And remember to send us a brief e-mail letting us know you sent a letter so that we can update the count. Send it to indianacares@yahoo.com with Letter in the subject line.
Tips on writing to your legislator
You have a voice. As a constituent, your legislator pays attention to you and it CAN make a difference in how he/she votes. Here are some tips for letter writing:
1. Start with the proper title: Honorable or Representative/Senator.
2. State the reason for your letter right away. Talk about it in your first paragraph. Mention the name of the bill or legislative document.
3. Say why you care about this issue. Tell a brief personal story that helps explain why it's important to you.
4. Be short and to the point. A one-page letter is best and most effective. Be courteous - ranting and raving can make you appear irrational.
5. Thank them for listening to your point of view.
6. Give your name and address, both on the letter and envelope. This shows that you're a constituent and you're most likely to get a response.
7. Mail to either their home address or their State House address.
8. Try to follow up with a phone call. Ask if they received your letter.
The Amendment (SJR7)
ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA IS AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Section 38. (a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Talking PointsPick one or two or three of these and build them into a letter. It doesn't need to be long.
Indiana already has a law stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Gay marriage is already illegal in Indiana - voting down the amendment won't legalize gay marriage.
Allowing gays to marry would have no effect on straight marriages.
Despite the passage of laws in states banning gay marriages, the undisputed evidence is that more and more straight couples are having children outside of marriage. And all evidence shows that the ban on gay marriages is not slowing the number of heterosexual couples who choose to end their marriages through divorce.
Part (b) of the proposed amendment is vague and ambiguous. It will most probably have unintended consequences.
Such a statement will guarantee lawsuits. Before the election, the proponents typically say these initiatives are just about marriage. After the election, they often try to use them to dismantle domestic partnership health plans and any other form of recognition for same-sex couples.
The "legal incidents" of marriage is an undefined term.
Hospital visitation for a same sex partner could be disallowed.
Ohio has shown that domestic violence protection is invalidated for unmarried couples, oppposite or same sex, by vague wording in their constitutional amendment.
Many seniors choose not to remarry so that they can keep pensions or Social Security. This would threaten their contractual care agreements.
32% of all adoptions in the U.S. are by unmarried persons. There are over 2500 children waiting to be adopted in Indiana. The second sentence could also prevent unmarried persons from adopting or providing foster care.
Less than 25% of American families are made up of "one man + one woman" households. Will single parents or heterosexual, committed couples find themselves suddenly declared unconstitutional?
Universities in Michigan are no longer allowed to provide domestic partnership benefits since a recent ruling by the appellate court. That state amendment also had a vague second sentence.
This is an equal justice issue.
Don't write discrimination into the constitution. SJR-7 will do something that no other amendment to the Indiana Constitution has accomplished: it diminishes rights. It does this by depriving unmarried couples of the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by married, opposite-sex couples.
In a country of "liberty and justice for all" we should not put my child's and an entire communities' rights and freedoms up to a popular vote.
You must understand that this issue is about a higher principle - basic fairness. You don't have to agree in marriage equality to know that exclusion is unfair and should not be written into our constitution.
Nothing could be more at odds with the Constitution than denying an American citizen his or her rights based on the biased beliefs of another citizen.
Any time the legislature exercises its constitutional powers to take away rights from any group of citizens it owes us all a thorough deliberation of the subject matter and rationale for the proposed action.
Universities and companies made a business decision that offering benefits to same sex couples was good for the state from an economic point of view, as well as being the right decision.
SJR 7 not only contributes to the "brain drain" from Indiana, as many professional couples find this an oppressive climate and move away, but it also discriminates against ALL couples in committed relationships who are not married, and (as verified by a recent court ruling in Michigan) undermines the right of educational institutions to offer domestic partner benefits.
The rights of the minority should always be considered.
Agreement with the principal that government cannot allow groups of people to be deprived of rights accorded other citizens, based upon the prejudice of still other groups, is a necessary condition to the creation of a society that values families.
Writing discrimination into the constitution, federal or state, is unjust. It singles out a group of people and categorizes them as second-class citizens undeserving of legal and economic protections. Marriage discrimination subjects same-sex couples to the tyranny of the majority.
Can you imagine placing the civil rights of blacks to a popular vote during the 1950's and 1960's in the South? Consider the bigotry and ignorance that was so extreme in those regions during that time. This is what the framers of the constitution called the tyranny of the majority.
These aren't special rights - they're basic things like making emergency medical decisions, inheritance rights, and property rights.
Indiana has serious economic and education issues that should have priority during this legislative session.
There has been much concern expressed about Indiana's "brain-drain". Bills such as SJR 7 contribute to this, as people who fear for their safety or see that their economic rights and health care provisions are robbed leave this state. Is this the kind of climate you wish to promote?
As your constituent, I ask that you vote NO on SJR-7 or, at the very least, abstain from voting yes. As a voter, I am tired of my leaders wasting time on issues that divide our community. Instead, please focus on the issues that bring us together.
We believe in equality and love, not division and fear.
What unites us as families and as communities is much greater than what divides us. We believe that families need more support in our state, but it cannot be accomplished by writing discrimination into our Constitution. We need policies that will help create as many stable, healthy families as possible - not impose definitions of what constitutes a family.GO TO STOPTHEAMENDMENT.ORG FOR MORE DETAILS CONCERNING THESE POINTS.
Some Sample Letters
Dear Representative ___________
As the mother/father of a gay/lesbian child, I ask that you vote NO regarding SJR-7. This amendment directly affects my child and my family. It is discriminatory in nature and has the potential to cause much damage to Hoosiers.
This is not just about marriage between one man and one woman. It is already illegal for gays and lesbians to marry in Indiana. That won't change.
The purpose of this amendment is to make life more difficult for a minority group of people in our state. The vagueness of the language of Part B will strip away domestic partner health benefits. Loving couples could lose hospital visitation rights.
Why do legislators feel the need to purposely make life harder for my child? If this amendment passes, my son/daughter will probably leave the state. Why would he/she want to stay in a state that doesn't want to protect him/her?
We risk losing some of our brightest youngsters. They will go to school in other states and eventually settle there rather than returning to Indiana. It's happening already and this amendment will only intensify our loss.
Please consider me and my family when this amendment comes up for a vote.
Thank you.
Dear Representative ___________
I am the father of a lesbian daughter and I have a passionate interest in gay rights. I realize that gay marriage is already against the law in Indiana, and I know that will not change in the near future. However, marriage is a civil contract; and religion should have nothing to do with the state's view of marriage. Each church can refuse to marry gays on religious grounds, and I support that. However, the state should not allow religion to be injected into this matter. I would ask you or anyone else to explain how permitting my daughter to marry her partner will affect my marriage or yours.
Having said that, I ask that you consider the next issue. That is that the second part (part b) of SJR-7 , if it passes, affects more than just gays. It means Hoosiers could lose the right to leave their estates to loved ones; hospital visitation rights could be lost; state supported universities could be forced to drop domestic-partner benefits; single women won't have domestic violence protections; senior citizens who choose not to marry could lose benefits; and adoption rights of unmarried persons could be affected. I plead with you to stand strong and have the courage to vote no on SJR-7.
Dear Representative ___________
My spouse and I have been married for _____ years. We care about each other deeply and nothing can change that. I don't understand how offering the GLBT population the right to have civil unions would undermine my relationship with my spouse. The proposed amendment has nothing to do with me or my marriage. In addition, Part B of the amendment has been added to strip away and deny unmarried couples, both gay and straight, their basic rights.
Indiana has been my home for many years and I don't like the direction this amendment would take us. I would hate to see intelligent young people leave the state because they would not be eligible for health benefits, be denied the right to adopt children, and fear for their safety. We want Indiana to be a haven for the best and the brightest.
Please vote against SJR-7.
Sincerely,
Representative Bauer,
I'd like to express to you my opposition to a proposed amendment to our state constitution. As someone who's committed to the American ideal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I feel that it's my duty to stand up for equal rights for all people. SJR-7 would do something that no other amendment to the Indiana Constitution has accomplished: it would diminish rights.
Not only does this amendment discriminate against a minority group of citizens, but it places in peril many rights that already exist for unmarried Hoosier families. Please don't forget that, in America today, less than 25% of families consist of one man and one woman households. Should children be without access to health care and other vital benefits? Will single parents or heterosexual, committed couples suddenly find themselves declared unconstitutional? This amendment will put children and families at risk.
The real impact of the language of these destructive amendments has been obscured by anti-LGBT activists. They say "Don't worry" now, but in reality, as time has shown, the intent in their ambiguous lingo is challenged in court and people are harmed.
Your leadership is very important. Please stand up for all Hoosier families and oppose this amendment.
Respectfully,