Disagreement does not constitute a "lie"
Normally people stop saying things they disagree with are "lies" by second grade at the latest. Yet I am accused of "lying" every single day on HeraldTimesOnline by Leftists who simply disagree with me. You have to wonder if these people are capable of thinking logically, or if they simply respond by name-calling any time they see an argument they do not like or agree with.
I explained on HoosierAccess.com a couple weeks ago that HJR-3, before it was mutilated by the House of Representatives, would not have prohibited private corporations from offering domestic partner benefits to either unmarried heterosexual couples or to homosexual couples. I have repeatedly been called a "liar" by childish Leftists for making this argument. But, once again, let's go to the text.
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.
As I pointed out before, the two key words in the allegedly odious and draconian second sentence are "legal status." A benefit from a private employer is not a legal status, and neither is a benefit from a state-supported institution such as a university. There is no danger that domestic partner benefits would be decriminalized if the marriage amendment had been passed by the house and approved by the voters in its original form.
We need to be real here. The only way domestic partner benefits would be challenged at all is if someone filed a Don Quixote lawsuit to get them banned. I cannot see a lawsuit like that being filed at all, and certainly not by anyone with meaningful financial resources to mount an effective legal challenge. Even if that happened, does anyone really believe that we are going to see a court ruling that domestic partner benefits are illegal under the proposed amendment?
Come on, now. That is not going to happen, and everyone knows it.
The real objective of changing the amendment is not to "fix" the allegedly "objectionable" language in HJR-3. The real objective is to run out the clock. If the amendment passes both houses with the second provision removed, the schedule starts over. It would have to be passed by the next general assembly in 2015 or 2016 in order to be on the 2016 ballot. Public opinion in these United States is rapidly moving toward acceptance of government recognizing same-sex marriage. Whether you like that or not, that is where we are moving. The goal is to hold the amendment off until public opinion in Indiana shifts enough that it will not pass.
That is the real strategery, so be honest about it. Please do not insult my intelligence with doomsday predictions about a scenario that is about as likely as Pee Wee Herman knocking out Mike Tyson in his prime.