Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUrging General Assembly to Reject the Proposed State Constitutional Amendment Permanently Defining MarriageRESOLUTION 4314 -14 Passed by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana January 13, 1,8 y 20 . Attest: C- A P� cq 6� Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana January 14, 20 1 S y City Clerk President of Common Council Approved and signed by me 4 A ILY 1(O 201-1. y City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 3 t -t -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, URGING THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REJECT THE PROPOSED STATE CONSTITUTUIONAL AMENDMENT PERMANENTLY DEFINING MARRIAGE the South Bend Common Council notes that in 2011, the Indiana General Assembly adopted House Joint Resolution No. 6 ( "HJR 6 "), which would add a new Section 38 to Article I of the Indiana Constitution, which would read as follows: "Section 38. Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized "; and in order to become effective, HJR 6 must be voted on again and have identical language passed by the 2014 General Assembly, and then ratified by a majority of those voting on the question during the November 2014 General Election; and if passed by popular vote, it would be added to the Indiana Constitution; and Qf)" it should be noted that Indiana Code § 31- 11- 1 -1(a) already provides that, "Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female "; and was upheld against a state constitutional challenge in Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E. 2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); and Q6" on August 21, 2013, a coalition of Indiana businesses and groups announced the formation of Freedom Indiana, a bi- partisan statewide organization, including two (2) of Indiana's largest employers, Eli Lilly and Company and Cummins, Inc. who oppose HJR 6; and 4 several legislative bodies have adopted resolutions voicing their opposition to HJR 6 including but not limited to the Indianapolis City- County Council adopting a Resolution by a 22 -6 vote on November 10, 2013; Evansville New Albany Common Council adopting a resolution on November 21, 2013; Common Council adopting Resolution No. C -2013 on December 9, 2013; Bloomington Common Council adopting Resolution No. 13 -15 on December 4, 2013; and as of January 1, 2014 eleven (11) Indiana Mayors have publicly voiced their opposition to HJR -6 who are the administrative leaders of Angola, Anderson, Bloomington, Carmel, Fort Wayne, Hammond, Indianapolis, Kokomo, South Bend, Valparaiso, and West Lafayette; and 46" South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has publicly stated that "Indiana's constitution exists in order to protect rights and freedoms, not take them away. Our state must be welcoming and respectful of all individuals, or we will be left behind. Changing the constitution in order to deny certain protections to some Hoosier families would send the exact wrong message as we work to grow and develop a competitive economy in cities like South Bend. "; and Resolution Addressing HHR -6 Page 2 4 a majority of the legislative branch of the City of South Bend believe that HJR -6 is not good for the business of Indiana or for the families of Indiana, as noted in a recent poll conducted by Ball State University showing that 58% of Indiana residents oppose the proposed constitutional amendment, and that in addition to the actions of the mayors and council noted to date that educational institutions such as Indiana University, Purdue University, Ball State University, Butler University and DePaul University have expressed their opposition; and recruiting and retaining the younger generation workforce must include recognition and respect for those in same -sex unions, but HJR 6 sends precisely the opposite message; and WIM4 , on June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of the marriage of same -sex couples who were legally married under state law, was unconstitutional; and q it should be further noted that Indiana University, DePauw University, Wabash College, Ball State University, Butler University, the University of Evansville, University of Indianapolis and Indiana State University have declared that HJR -6 would be a conflict in policies against harassment and discrimination; and a recent study by students at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law found more than 600 rights and obligations related to marriage that could be permanently denied under HJR 6. Section I. The majority of the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, urges the 2014 Indiana General Assembly to vote against HJR 6. Section II. The South Bend Common Council directs the City Clerk o to distribute copies of this Resolution to Indiana Governor Mike Pence and to all members of the Indiana General Assembly who have emails of public record. Section III. This Resolution shall be in full for e ect o er its adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor. �- Council Member Tim Scott, I" District South Bend Common Council hn oorde, City Clerk PI2MWEO .� —13 -1 i NOT APPROVED z Pete Butjlg4eg, Ma0ef South Bend Filed in Clerk's Office _tAF i_i'v wm6nc TO THE COMMON COUNCIL ()F THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND: Your Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred: BILL NO. 14 -07 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, URGING THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REJECT THE PROPOSED STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMANENTLY DEFINING MARRIAGE Respectfully report that they have examined the matter and that in their opinion, this bill is being recommended to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. This bill was heard by the Personnel & Finance Committee. Valerie Schey Chairperson, Committee of the Whole pU TH 6� City of South Bend Common Council A A 1865 441 County-City Building A 227 W. Jefferson Blvd South Bend, Indiana 46601 -1830 Derek D. Dieter President Oliver J. Davis Vice - President Karen L. White Chairperson, Committee of the Whole January 8, 2014 Members of the Common Council 4°i Floor County -City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 Re: Resolution in Opposition to HJR -6 (574) 235 -9321 Fax (574) 235 -9173 http: //w .southbendin.gov Tim Scott Dear Council Members: First District I have been contacted by individuals requesting the Common Council to provide an Henry Davis, Jr. opportunity to voice their concerns on House Joint Resolution No.6 which would add a Second District new Section 38 to Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution defining marriage. Valerie Schey The proposed Resolution sets forth some of the background information on this measure, Third District since the Indiana General Assembly initially adopted HJR -6 in 2011. Fred Ferlic Additional data presented indicates that many individuals, businesses, faith leaders, Fourth District human rights and community organizations have presented information with regard to David Varner potential discriminatory effects and potential negative impacts on economic growth and Fifth District development. Oliver J. Davis A public hearing on this proposed Resolution for next Monday, January 13, 2014, will Sixth District provide an opportunity for voices to be heard on this matter. Thank you. Derek D. Dieter Sincerely, At Large - :i Gavin Ferlic _% iv1c Iti t`�odtt At Large South Bend Common Council Karen L. White Attachment At Large Filed in +� �M1. e� .ys+v 3 P9 �Eedd7, lid g