Administration, alumni, faculty and students of Indiana’s higher education institutions add to the
ever-growing list of those opposed to passage of the Marriage Discrimination Amendment.
INDIANAPOLIS – Major Indiana-based learning institutions continue to express their concern about ramifications of the Marriage Discrimination Amendment and have logged their opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR-7) with leadership in the Indiana House and Senate though a series of resolutions, written communications and sign-on petitions.
As of this release, DePauw University Administration/Faculty and Student Congress leadership, the Hanover College Student Senate, the Ball State University Faculty Council, the Indiana University Alumni and Faculty, and the Indiana Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have added their voices to the strong set of Indiana groups speaking out about this harmful legislation.
In a letter sent to leaders of the Indiana House and Senate, DePauw University President Robert G. Bottoms states “I am writing to voice my strong opposition to Senate Joint Resolution No. 7. This proposed amendment will give prospective employees DePauw hopes to attract (we recruit both faculty and administrators from a national pool) a very negative view of Indiana. Senate Joint Resolution No. 7 undoubtedly makes Indiana less inclusive than other states and this hurts our ability to attract the “best and brightest” to Indiana.
Bottoms adds, “this amendment opens Indiana’s higher education institutions who offer domestic partner benefits to the same kind of legal arguments taking place in Kentucky (the University of Louisville), Michigan (Michigan State University), and Ohio (Miami University).”
Opponents such as Indiana Equality, who participated in the Senate hearing earlier this month, have long expressed their concerns about the vague nature of the amendment’s language and the impact it will have on Indiana’s higher education institutions.
“Michigan’s amendment uses very clear language in defining marriage,” said Randy Studt, Chair of Indiana Equality. “Despite that clarity, it has been widely interpreted by the courts. If SJR-7 continues to move forward, thousands of unmarried Hoosier couples and their families could lose not just domestic partner benefits, but become extremely vulnerable to future discrimination.”
Michigan’s amendment has resulted in the loss of domestic partner benefits for LGBT employees and their families in the academic arena. Under SJR-7, all unmarried couples and families working for public universities, for Indiana state government, or for other municipalities would likely lose these benefits.
“We’ve seen in neighboring states the negative impact amendments of this nature can have for all unmarried couples,” Studt said. “Simply put, the Marriage Discrimination Amendment violates every Hoosier’s basic right to fairness and equality.”
Opposition to SJR-7 continues to grow, with editorials in Indiana’s major media outlets, businesses and corporations, academia, legal scholars and with the general public. The Indy Star/ Channel 13 poll released in November showed that only 49% of Hoosiers supported SJR-7, down from 56% in 2005. In fact, it also showed that opposition to the measure went up by 4%.
“Hoosiers are beginning to see this issue as the political wedge issue it has always been. Perhaps they are also calling into question the serious damage SJR-7 could cause for all unmarried couples,” remarked Studt.
For more information about Indiana Equality, please visit:
http://www.indianaequality.org/ :applause: