Gay Marriage Amendment Dead

So reports the Indianapolis Star in Gay-marriage ban dies in House. Good riddance.

Pelath and opponents argue that the state already has a law banning same-sex marriages and that the amendment's language was ambiguous and could result in unintended consequences on issues including domestic violence protection and businesses' ability to recruit employees.

"This really is a very simple decision," Pelath said. "The reality is, we have no gay marriages in Indiana. It is against the law. Nobody has brought me evidence of a gay marriage taking place in this state.

"There's no reason to put very poorly crafted verbiage into our constitution, out state's highest document, that could potentially be a lawyer's dream with all sorts of unintended consequences."

Eric Miller, founder of the conservative activist group Advance America, blames Bauer, who he said has intentionally sent the amendment to Pelath's committee to kill it.

"It is a tragedy for the people of Indiana that one man, Speaker Pat Bauer, stopped the 100 members of the House (from) being able to vote to protect marriage and prevented the citizens of Indiana from having the opportunity to vote to protect marriage," Miller said. "It's not only a disappointment, it's wrong."

Pelath rejected that argument.

"That's not what our constitution says. It doesn't just say you throw out an idea and you throw it out for a vote -- that's not how we do it," he said. "We don't send everything up for referendum here. We make decisions and do our jobs. I'm abiding by the constitution."

I think this amplifies what Don Sherfick wrote over at Indiana Equality in Miller Time – not quite what it used to be:

But SJR7 still passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate, though there is a reasonable argument that this was simply empty political theater because under Article 16 of the Constitution it had already done so in the same two-year term. It was obvious to those observing that Miller and his allies were hunkered down with the same slogan-filled rhetoric, and were again avoiding talking about statements by legal academics on their own side that contradicted claims about the acceptability and meaning of the fuzzy second sentence.