My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Urging General Assembly to Reject the Proposed State Constitutional Amendment Permanently Defining Marriage
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Legislation
>
Resolutions/Special Resolutions
>
2014
>
Urging General Assembly to Reject the Proposed State Constitutional Amendment Permanently Defining Marriage
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/17/2014 11:32:20 AM
Creation date
1/17/2014 11:31:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Ordinances
City Counci - Date
1/13/2014
Ord-Res Number
4314-14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
RESOLUTION NO. 3 t -t -1 <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, <br />URGING THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REJECT THE PROPOSED STATE <br />CONSTITUTUIONAL AMENDMENT PERMANENTLY DEFINING MARRIAGE <br />the South Bend Common Council notes that in 2011, the Indiana General Assembly <br />adopted House Joint Resolution No. 6 ( "HJR 6 "), which would add a new Section 38 to Article I of the <br />Indiana Constitution, which would read as follows: <br />"Section 38. Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or <br />recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of <br />marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized "; and <br />in order to become effective, HJR 6 must be voted on again and have identical language <br />passed by the 2014 General Assembly, and then ratified by a majority of those voting on the question <br />during the November 2014 General Election; and if passed by popular vote, it would be added to the <br />Indiana Constitution; and <br />Qf)" it should be noted that Indiana Code § 31- 11- 1 -1(a) already provides that, "Only a <br />female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female "; and was upheld against a state <br />constitutional challenge in Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E. 2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); and <br />Q6" on August 21, 2013, a coalition of Indiana businesses and groups announced the <br />formation of Freedom Indiana, a bi- partisan statewide organization, including two (2) of Indiana's <br />largest employers, Eli Lilly and Company and Cummins, Inc. who oppose HJR 6; and <br />4 several legislative bodies have adopted resolutions voicing their opposition to HJR 6 <br />including but not limited to the Indianapolis City- County Council adopting a Resolution by a 22 -6 vote <br />on November 10, 2013; Evansville New Albany Common Council adopting a resolution on November <br />21, 2013; Common Council adopting Resolution No. C -2013 on December 9, 2013; Bloomington <br />Common Council adopting Resolution No. 13 -15 on December 4, 2013; and as of January 1, 2014 <br />eleven (11) Indiana Mayors have publicly voiced their opposition to HJR -6 who are the administrative <br />leaders of Angola, Anderson, Bloomington, Carmel, Fort Wayne, Hammond, Indianapolis, Kokomo, <br />South Bend, Valparaiso, and West Lafayette; and <br />46" South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has publicly stated that "Indiana's constitution exists <br />in order to protect rights and freedoms, not take them away. Our state must be welcoming and respectful <br />of all individuals, or we will be left behind. Changing the constitution in order to deny certain <br />protections to some Hoosier families would send the exact wrong message as we work to grow and <br />develop a competitive economy in cities like South Bend. "; and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.