Academic community speaks out against Senate Joint Resolution 7

[IndyOp]

Administration, alumni, faculty and students of Indiana’s higher education institutions add to the
ever-growing list of those opposed to passage of the Marriage Discrimination Amendment.

INDIANAPOLIS – Major Indiana-based learning institutions continue to express their concern about ramifications of the Marriage Discrimination Amendment and have logged their opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR-7) with leadership in the Indiana House and Senate though a series of resolutions, written communications and sign-on petitions.

As of this release, DePauw University Administration/Faculty and Student Congress leadership, the Hanover College Student Senate, the Ball State University Faculty Council, the Indiana University Alumni and Faculty, and the Indiana Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have added their voices to the strong set of Indiana groups speaking out about this harmful legislation.

In a letter sent to leaders of the Indiana House and Senate, DePauw University President Robert G. Bottoms states “I am writing to voice my strong opposition to Senate Joint Resolution No. 7. This proposed amendment will give prospective employees DePauw hopes to attract (we recruit both faculty and administrators from a national pool) a very negative view of Indiana. Senate Joint Resolution No. 7 undoubtedly makes Indiana less inclusive than other states and this hurts our ability to attract the “best and brightest” to Indiana.

Bottoms adds, “this amendment opens Indiana’s higher education institutions who offer domestic partner benefits to the same kind of legal arguments taking place in Kentucky (the University of Louisville), Michigan (Michigan State University), and Ohio (Miami University).”

Opponents such as Indiana Equality, who participated in the Senate hearing earlier this month, have long expressed their concerns about the vague nature of the amendment’s language and the impact it will have on Indiana’s higher education institutions.

“Michigan’s amendment uses very clear language in defining marriage,” said Randy Studt, Chair of Indiana Equality. “Despite that clarity, it has been widely interpreted by the courts. If SJR-7 continues to move forward, thousands of unmarried Hoosier couples and their families could lose not just domestic partner benefits, but become extremely vulnerable to future discrimination.”

Michigan’s amendment has resulted in the loss of domestic partner benefits for LGBT employees and their families in the academic arena. Under SJR-7, all unmarried couples and families working for public universities, for Indiana state government, or for other municipalities would likely lose these benefits.

“We’ve seen in neighboring states the negative impact amendments of this nature can have for all unmarried couples,” Studt said. “Simply put, the Marriage Discrimination Amendment violates every Hoosier’s basic right to fairness and equality.”

Opposition to SJR-7 continues to grow, with editorials in Indiana’s major media outlets, businesses and corporations, academia, legal scholars and with the general public. The Indy Star/ Channel 13 poll released in November showed that only 49% of Hoosiers supported SJR-7, down from 56% in 2005. In fact, it also showed that opposition to the measure went up by 4%.

“Hoosiers are beginning to see this issue as the political wedge issue it has always been. Perhaps they are also calling into question the serious damage SJR-7 could cause for all unmarried couples,” remarked Studt.

For more information about Indiana Equality, please visit: http://www.indianaequality.org/

:applause:

[IndianaGreen]

1. The GOP has nothing left to offer but God, Guns, and Gays as wedge issues

They sure ain't gonna deliver on property tax reform.

[salin]

3. given that this is a ploy to drive up GOP voter turnout

which is why they always try to get things onto the ballot in presidential/major election years - it makes you wonder how fearful the GOP is about Mitch's chances... or after the election defeats of three GOP congressmen in 2006, could they worry about a first time in 40 + years dem vote at the top of the ticket?

[PVnRT]

4. I doubt the state goes blue for President

But it's very possible that there could be a Democratic takeover everywhere else. Hopefully, people don't get brainwashed into thinking that his property tax "reform" bill is a good thing.

[plantwomyn]

2. I intend to hold the dems responsible for their votes.

Arnold is on my shit list. "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman".
I am over their "activist judges" crap too. Amend the fucking constitution to limit "activist judges" then. They won't care if "activist judges" overturn Roe v. Wade.
Read this yesterday and agree completely.

February 4, 2008
SHEILA SUESS KENNEDY
Basically, proponents say gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because some religions teach that homosexuality is immoral. (Of course, all religions teach that rape and murder are immoral, but Indiana allows rapists and murderers to marry. Go figure.)

Let's at least be honest. This isn't an effort to protect families; it is an effort to privilege some families at the expense of others. SJR 7 is not about religion or morality; it is about whose religion, whose morality.

And what is up with indianaequality? I'm glad I do not count on them to keep me informed about what is going on with SJR 0007. It would have been all over by the time they got in on their website.