Governor Daniels' Statement

Today the Indianapolis Star addressed the House Republican Caucus' assault on the Constitution. The Governor released a carefully worded statement:

But, he said, the legislature should pass the amendment and send it to voters, to let them make the final determination.

"I believe in the traditional definition of marriage," he said Thursday. "That's not an excuse for discrimination or other violations of people's civil rights, but marriage has a very special, very sacred, very specific meaning, and I think it ought to be affirmed."

There are some important notes about this statement.  First, he repeats his support for the traditional definition of marriage, a statement that he has made in the past,   Second, he disapproves of using the definition as an excuse for discrimination or other violations of people's civil rights.

In the context of this debate, it is wise to understand the Governor's statement as supportive of the amendment going to vote, as supportive of an affirmation of marriage as between a man and a woman (a supposed universal definition with which I disagree, by the way), but as a statement of concern about broader impacts that this debate may have which would result in discrimination or violation of the civil rights of other  people, including glbt citizens.  It is the position of Indiana Equality that the language of the second section of the amendment  especially constitutes discrimination and a violation of rights to equal protection under the law ( not only for glbt people but for many who may choose to live together outside of marriage.)    

It would be a mistake to interpret the Governor's carefully worded statement as support for this sweeping amendment, and instead it is appropriate  to understand the Governor's statement as support for the traditional definition of marriage and concern for the use of that definition as an excuse for discrimination.   

In my opinion, this amendment must be changed if it is to accord with the Governor's views.

Comments

[Kevin]

Then why didn't he say that the wording should be changed?

[Chris Douglas]

Kevin, I'm not defending the Governor's statement, for I disagree with him fundamentally about the need for this matter to pass the legislature in any form whatsoever.

But in this year there are those politicians pressing aggressively (Bosma)and those who are acquiescing publicly (Bauer.) Daniels falls between, and provides some room by which to observe that this amendment has serious problems.

Bauer has made it clear that the amendment will go to a vote in the legislature. The Governor is bowing to the inevitable, while expressing concern.

[Annette]

"....send it to voters, to let them make the final determination...."

How would straight couples like it if the citizens of their state had to vote on whether or not they could be allowed to get married?

[Gary Welsh]

Chris,

While I'm quite pleased that Gov. Daniels steadfastly stood behind his own non-discrimination policy for state employees, I've still not forgotten that he expressed his view that Indy's HRO was unnecessary, and that he didn't think government should be telling private employers who they should hire. In other words, he was saying that he personally doesn't believe someone should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, if it's his decision, but for anyone else, that's a decision to be left up to them. His latest pronouncement on gay marriage is disheartening to say the least.

[Chris Douglas]

Of course I agree with both of you that what the Governor has had to say is disheartening. I would rather that he had remained silent, just as I would rather that Speaker Bauer had remained silent.

Daniels believes that the definition of marriage is a matter for Democracy; I disagree, finding it to be a matter of religious freedom, and its benefits a matter of equal protection.

That said, it is important to understand that Daniels has a concern for the rights of citizens and that this definition of marriage not serve as an excuse to attack other rights. In my opinion, the best we can hope right now given Bosma's aggression and Bauer's acquiescence to a vote, is for a change to the amendment to mitigate its inhumanity. I do believe that Daniels is not immune to question of the impact of the second portion of the amendment.

I am making no apology for the Governor's position, nor seeking to promote him. I am observing that Daniels' support for an amendment is not unqualified, but rests on the degree to which it is discriminatory (as the second part is) and in violation of other civil rights of citizens (as the second part does violate.)

[Kevin]

No offense but it sounds like you're trying to read the Governor's mind.

[Chris Douglas]

Kevin, thank you for your comment. Did he not harbor a concern, he would not have in the same statement mentioned discrimination and civil rights. This does not excuse him or his statement, but it is not mere speculation.

[Rick Sutton]

A Democrat wanders onto your site, and learns something.

Thanks, Chris.

The governor made millions at a company that actively seeks and promotes its gay employees. How ironic that he can cash the check, but not walk the walk.

He's trying to have it both ways. Frankly, I'd respect him more, if he simply stood against the Amendment.

But he can't do that, because most realize, support for this Amendment is not exactly inviting. In polite circles, it's becoming easier to support gay causes, as a matter of equity. Duh.

Time is on our side overall. Bauer is against our side now, for reasons I do not understand. The governor plays with words and he's basically irrelevant on this issue.

Harrison Ullman always said this is America's worst state legislature. For cryin out loud one of the incumbent Republicans is running TV ads that tout his business success as a vacuum cleaner salesman. Nothing against vaccuum salesmen, but I'd hope for a little more gravitas among people with so much at stake.

And if you doubt that observation, wander on over to the legislature on any given day and plop yourself down in the gallery for an hour.

If it doesn't shock you, you're not paying attention.

Thanks for the words of wisdom, Chris. It's a nice site.

[Chris Douglas]

Thank you for your comment, Rick, and for visiting.

Regarding the Governor's time at Lilly, I believe it was in the late -90's that as a vice-president at Lilly, he invited a younger fellow alum of both North Central High School and Princeton to his office to discuss the issues facing the glbt community. We spent nearly two hours talking, for classmates and friends of his at Princeton he had come later to learn were gay.

From that position and later I recall him voicing support for some measures Sue Anne Gilroy was engaged in on nondiscrimination.

In my opinion, Bauer cannot be said to have gone over to "the other side." Rather, both are engaged in a game of strategic distance, a game which gives them greater ability actually to influence the matter in quiet ways.

Other strategies are available, of course, but I am less concerned than many. I consider it akin to George H.W. Bush's strategic distance from Israel, a position which enabled him to serve as a greater broker of Israel's interest than either Clinton or Bush Jr., both of whom did not so easily grasp the advantages of distance. Clinton and Bush Jr. came closer to Israel, lost their credibility in the Arab world, and Israel's interests paid the price.

[Rick Sutton]

A regular Blog visit now, and it's a good site.

Interesting comments regarding MMM. He's still a charlatan on this issue. At best.

I do not agree regarding the Speaker-designate. On this issue, it's simple. Rep. Bauer has chosen to give in to what I believe is a minority in his caucus...not that many were clammering for a vote on this issue.

He could've taken heat for a day by not calling it down for a vote. The same people who opposed him before would've again. Tempest in a teapot.

Now, the vote will force some strategic alliances to gather together to alter verbiage by one or two lines, wordss commas, etc. The issue is not gauranteed to hang around for days, or weeks...and we could suffer death from a thousand cuts. Unnecessarily.

That will anger even more. And the same far-right goofs who opposed Pat on this issue before, will still be there, except, they can add to their ire: getting cute with language.

Which is considered to be legislative nonsense. And there's way too much of that. Ask anyone. This legislature isn't exactly popular.

Let's hope for the best all-around.

Happy blogging.

"now" gauranteed

[Chris Douglas]

Thank you, Rick. Glad to have you and your comments.

I guess I felt throughout that regardless of who controlled the legislature, it was inevitable that the amendment would be back for a vote. The Democrats under Bauer took a bullet once, and I couldn't see how the Democratic Caucus under Bauer was going to take another Bullet for the glbt constituency, given other constituencies vying for the benefits of power.

So the Bauer comment, which I think then left Daniels with nowhere to go, too, was disappointing and unhelpful, but alas was surprising to me only in timing, not in substance.