New proposal to ban gay marriage protects partner benefits
wow, really? the proposal bans gay marriage, but protects partner benefits? that's surprisingly progressive for an attempt to enshrine bigotry into the state constitution.
An effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages in Indiana is being renewed, this time with new wording that supporters hope will sway critics.
Its supporters said the new version would prohibit civil unions -- which are already not recognized in Indiana -- without affecting domestic partner benefits offered by some employers.
wait, what? but the headline said...
In the past, the amendment has been opposed by businesses and universities in Indiana that feared it would conflict with their policies granting benefits to the partners of gay employees. They also worried the amendment would make Indiana seem like an intolerant place, hurting economic development.
Turner and Cheatham said the new language is identical to the wording of amendments in Wisconsin and Kentucky, and has not hurt domestic partnerships, domestic violence laws or economic development in those states.
note to the editors at the star: protect does not mean "not hurt". if i point a gun at your face, and then lower it, i'm not "protecting" you... i'm simply no longer threatening you. an amendment that protected domestic partner benefits would be one that, you know, specifically states that employers may offer domestic partner benefits. this proposed amendment does nothing of the sort. ¶