« Open Thread: Maybe You Could Show Me How To Let Go, Lower My Guard | Main | Cheney Resigns: Indiana Headline Gives Hope To Millions Of Americans »

Finally, An Answer: Guv Supports Writing Marriage Into The Constitution

Weddingcake_2During the last legislative session, no one was able to pin the Guv down when it came to his support for or opposition to the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. (It was hard to pin him down because he was hiding under his desk.) However, this forwarded response to a constituent note makes his stance pretty clear:

From: <response@gov.in.gov>
To: <---------------@yahoo.com>
Subject: Responding to your message
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:28:42 -0400

Dear Mrs. ----------,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage. Either the out-of-state organization that contacted you received incorrect information about my position on this matter, or they were grossly unfair.

The organization criticized me for comments I made during a June 15th media availability. Here is the specific question asked by one local reporter along with my verbatim response.

Question: "Among the issues that other Republicans are going to be running on, especially in the House this year, is the same sex marriage amendment and immigration and I was wondering if you agree with them on those issues, and will their agenda be your agenda?"

Governor Daniels: "Well, I've agreed with them (proponents) on an amendment. I'm not sure there is a unified position on immigration; people have a range of views there. I will just say these won't be emphases of mine."

This public statement was the latest in dozens I have made regarding the proper definition of marriage. As I clearly said on June 15th, and have always stated, I support the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and would support an amendment to confirm this further in Indiana law.

As you know, governors are specifically separated from the constitutional amendment process, having neither the opportunity to sign nor veto the resolutions that send proposed amendments to statewide votes.

The ultimate decision on this important matter should rightly rest with the people of Indiana, and although the amendment did not make it out of committee during this past legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly will have another opportunity to address this important issue when they convene in January of 2008.

Please feel free to share this communication with your family and friends as you feel appropriate, so they too clearly understand I support the traditional definition of marriage. Thank you for your citizenship.

Mitch Daniels

This E-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this E-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you.


This whole thing is both simultaneously ridiculous and tragic. We need some kind of domestic partnership law in this state. Too many people live together nowadays (of all sexual persuasions) and they deserve legal protection in the event of illness or death, to facilitate adoption and a whole host of other basic human rights that come with that marriage certificate. If the church wants to decide who they'll "marry" that's their right, but government documents need to be non-discriminatory. Period. But the little fella will just crawl back under his desk when the time comes or say something stupid and completely irrelevant.

Why doesn't anyone hold the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH's feet to the fire on what happens/ed with this LEGISLATION? I know it's fun to try to paint people into a corner, and that the gov has gone to bat for certain legislation in the past - but his mandate is a little different than the folks' up on the 3rd floor...

Is that support of the ammendment with or without part B ?

Me thinks the guv is trying to walk a mighty fine line. Note that he says he would support "an" ammendment that would define marriage not "the" ammendment with the offensive wording that was before the legislature. The real question is would he supprot civil unions. Being asked that would force him off his fine line and back under the desk.

Not trying to defend the Governor, but that is consistent with what his position has been all along. He said when he ran in 2004 he supported the marriage amendment, but he also said he wouldn't make that an issue in the campaign. He did not. And he has not immersed himself in the divisive debate in the legislature. I would have hoped he would have come to the same conclusion his former employer, Eli Lilly, reached--that the amendment is bad economically and culturally for the state. It should be pointed out that Richard Young supports the amendment and stood up on the podium with Eric Miller this past session to say so. I suspect, if pressed for a position, Jim Schellinger will also say he supports defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I don't have a clue where Long stands on the issue.

He was against it before he was for it.....

I guess that campaign pledge to not touch divisive wedge issues lasted all of two weeks...

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In