|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />JANUARY 13, 2014
<br />WHEREAS, it should be noted that Indiana Code 31- 11- 1 -1(a) already provides that,
<br />"Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female"; and was upheld against a
<br />state constitutional challenge in Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E. 2D 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); and
<br />WHEREAS, on August 21, 2013, a coalition of Indiana businesses and groups announced
<br />the formation of Freedom Indiana, a bi- partisan statewide organization, including two (2) of
<br />Indiana's largest employers, Eli Lilly and Company and Cummins, Inc. who oppose HJR 6; and
<br />WHEREAS, several legislative bodies have adopted resolution voicing their opposition to
<br />HJR 6 including but not limited to the Indianapolis City-County Council adopting a Resolution
<br />by a 22 -6 vote on November 10,2013; Evansville New Albany Common Council adoption a
<br />resolution on November 21, 2013; Common Council adopting Resolution No. C -2013 on
<br />December 9, 2013; Bloomington Common Council adopting Resolution No. 13 -15 on December
<br />4, 2013; and as of January 1, 2014 eleven (11) Indiana Mayors have publicly voiced their
<br />opposition to HJR -6 who are the administrative leaders of Angola, Anderson, Bloomington,
<br />Carmel, Fort Wayne, Hammond, Indianapolis, Kokomo, South Bend, Valparaiso, and West
<br />Lafayette; and
<br />WHEREAS, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has publicly stated that, "Indiana's
<br />constitution exists in order to protect rights and freedoms, not take them away. Our state must be
<br />welcoming and respectful of all individuals, or we will be left behind. Changing the constitution
<br />in order to deny certain protections to some Hoosier families would send the exact wrong
<br />message as we work to grow and develop a competitive economy in cities like South Bend. "; and
<br />WHEREAS, a majority of the legislative branch of the City of South Bend believes that
<br />HJR -6 is not good for the business of Indiana or for the families of Indiana, as noted in a recent
<br />poll conducted by Ball State University showing that 58% of Indiana residents oppose the
<br />proposed constitutional amendment, and that in addition to the actions of the mayors and council
<br />noted to date that educational institutions such as Indiana University, Purdue University, Ball
<br />State University and DePauw University have expressed their opposition; and
<br />WHEREAS, recruiting and retaining the younger generation workforce must include
<br />recognition and respect for those in same -sex unions, but HJR -6 sends precisely the opposite
<br />message; and
<br />WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of
<br />the federal Defense of Marriage under state law, was unconstitutional; and
<br />WHEREAS, it should be further noted that Indiana University, DePauw University,
<br />Wabash College, Ball State University, Butler University, the University of Evansville,
<br />University of Indianapolis and Indiana State University have declared that HJR -6 would be a
<br />conflict in policies against harassment and discrimination; and a recent study by students at the
<br />Indiana University Maurer School of Law found more than 600 rights and obligations related to
<br />marriage that could be permanently denied under HJR -6.
<br />Now, Therefore, be it resolved, by the Common Council of the City of South Bend,
<br />Indiana, as follows:
<br />SECTION I. The majority of the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, urges the
<br />2014 Indiana General Assembly to vote against HJR 6.
<br />SECTION II. The South Bend Common Council directs the City Clerk to distribute copies of this
<br />Resolution to Indiana Governor Mike Pence and to all members of the Indiana General Assembly
<br />who have emails of public record.
<br />SECTION III. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the
<br />Council and approval by the Mayor.
<br />Council Member Tim Scott, 1st District
<br />9
<br />
|