An article in the Indianapolis Star unfortunately startled many in the glbt community by reporting that Governor Daniels said he would vote for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.  There are many possible Constitutional amendments, those that ban outright and those circumvent judicial processes by reserving the power of definition to the legislature.  The Governor in the conference reported by the Star did NOT change his position, but repeated what he has said from the beginning of his term.  While some (including me) disagree with his position, and believe that the judiciary serves as the principle defender of the Bill of Rights and principle check on the tyranny of the majority, the Star mis-characterized has having advanced further to support for an outright ban. 

Below is the full transcript of the relevant questions and answers.

Reporter: Governor, yesterday the California Supreme court legalized gay marriage. Do you see that reviving that as an issue here and do you see it at as a Republican issue going out and saying I told you so?

Governor Daniels: No, I don’t. I mean, I don’t know. I don’t have anything new to say about this.

I think whether it’s this issue or some other, it’s unfortunate when judges rip decision making out of the hands of the people. These things ought to be decided by the people of California or any other state.

But nothing new to say beyond that.”

Reporter: Governor,  I want go to back to Norm’s Question. I wasn’t sure when you said “no, I don’t.” Which question were you saying “No, I don’t” to?

Governor Daniels: Well, I think he was asking me something about a political prediction.  I should just say I don’t know. But I’ve said often that I think it is usually unfortunate when judges take unto themselves the power to make decisions or to overturn decisions that the people of any state have made and I think it undermines democracy and people’s sense that they have control over their own lives and communities.

Reporter: So don’t you think we need a constitutional amendment to protect against that here?

Governor Daniels: I’ve said before I would vote for one if it were put on the ballot to protect against this very outcome…  to protect the right of the people of Indiana to make this choice and not have it dictated to them.

Jon Elrod in an Indiana Equality Survey declined to answer several questions due to a lack of familiarity.  His silence on those questions was too easily misinterpreted as potential opposition to GLBT interests,  so I have spoken with  Jon Elrod, discussed the substance of the matters with him, and obtained from him the principles under which he would address legislation on the topic of domestic partnership benefits for federal employees, recognition of same sex partners for purposes of immigration, and federal legislation on adoption.

Regarding Domestic Partnership for federal employees, Jon Elrod favors equitable treatment of employees in same sex relationships and would proceed under that principle.  He would have some reservations about the proposed act if it confers benefits on people who could easily get married.  (He believes heterosexual and gay couples should be treated equally under the law, with civil unions for all, and marriage as a matter for church not state.)  He is unequivocal in supporting domestic partnership for same sex couples who cannot marry.  In my opinion, the GLBT community can lay to rest any concerns on this topic. 

Regarding immigration, Jon Elrod is unequivocal in supporting recognition for immigration purposes of same sex partners in bona fide relationships.  (In this instance, bona fide means that a standard pf recognition exists by which a  relationship can be considered genuine, and not merely constructed for immigration purposes, just as marriages fall under similar scrutiny.)  In my opinion, the GLBT community can lay to rest any concerns on this topic. 

Regarding Adoption, Elrod believes that is generally a matter of regulation at state level, and he is uncertain what the federal ramifications are.  Jon Elrod does believe that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt, and he supports the current state law environment in Indiana under which adoptions are allowed. In my opinion, the GLBT community should lay to rest any concerns on this topic.   

In response to the post below, which also appeared as a guest post on Indiana-Bilerico (a blog of interest to the Indiana GLBT community), a thoughtful challenge appeared under the pen name of Tyrion on Tyrion's Blog.  The points Tyrion makes are of a respectful nature and deserve a respectful response of my own, for they are not points I fail to consider in calling attention to Jon Eldrod's candidacy. 

Elrod's responses to a survey by Indiana Equality are meritorious for his willingness publicly to commit to very important positions, groundbreaking not only for any recent Republican congressional candidate in Indiana, but demonstrating a greater concern for the Constitutional Guarantees to religious freedom and the equal protection of the laws than many Democratic Hoosier  officeholders.  He favors extending nondiscrimination protection to include sexual orientation and gender identity; measures to discourage crimes of hate targeting classes of citizens, including glbt citizens; the legal recognition of same sex relationships; and a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".    Those areas wherein Elrod did not respond represent thoughtful demurral pending more information, rather than an attempt to avoid the questions at hand, let alone opposition to GLBT interests.

Further, Elrod's presence in the Indiana House of Representatives was important for Indiana's glbt community, as is his run now for Congress.   To understand this, it is important to understand that successful politics involves bank shots.  Having just a few Republicans oppose the marriage amendment, for instance, stripped the amendment of purely partisan division, and allowed nonpartisan corporations, churches and editorial boards to join opposition to the amendment without appearing to favor one party over another.  And such Republicans opposition also provides coverage for some pressured Democrats to oppose the amendment.  Lastly, it should not be lost upon the us that in departing the Indiana House for Congress, Elrod is almost certainly turning his seat back over to the Democrats, a fact that has earned him  criticism among conservative supporters of the House Republican Caucus.

Also, progress for the GLBT community in Indiana and nationally requires a change in dynamics within and between the Republican and Democratic Parties, a change which an Elrod incumbency would serve to engender and a Carson incumbency would not, no matter Andre Carson's merits.  Support for comprehensive nondiscrimination and domestic partnership policies in corporate America has made it easier for supporters of legislation to press our case among cautious politicians.  In order truly to see progress we need to see support grow in the Republican Party as well, for without the political cover that growing Republican support provides, moderate and conservative Democrats will remain too  cautious in their districts to risk votes for measures that would otherwise be deemed "too liberal." 

Finally, while I join other analysts, including even the conservative Wall Street Journal, in assessing that the odds of the Democrats retaining Congress in November at better than 90%, I observe that should that the threat of loss truly return in some way deleterious to the interests of the GLBT, the community will have ample opportunity to reassess  our interests in the fall.

In the special election on  March 11th, we will be presented with a decision which previously has been all too rare, a choice between two candidates, Jon Elrod and Andre Carson, either one of which could be worthy personally of GLBT support.

I write as one who as a Republican valued Julia Carson's strong record of support for the GLBT community, and who in return supported her financially in the face of challenges by Republicans that I considered to be second to her in their humanity.  For such a steadfast friend of our community, I could never find it within me to join in derision of her.   I  write as one who  has not been shy in identifying to the gay community Republicans who I felt fell far short of our support in contests against friends of the community.  Finally I write as one who in spite of my high esteem for him, declined to support Jon Elrod in his successful bid for the Indiana House, for I felt that no matter how worthy Elrod, the House Republican Caucus posed too great a threat to the Constitution to be allowed the power of a majority. 

In my opinion now, the GLBT community and our allies in Indianapolis, whether Republican, Independent or Democrat, would  best be served by supporting Jon Elrod in his bid for Congress.   Under present circumstances, a successful Elrod bid in this Elrod-Carson race would present the greater opportunity for progress both in Indiana and nationally.

With regard to the GLBT community, support for Jon Elrod is support for progress in my opinion.  I detail my reasons below.   

First, of the  candidates, Elrod has proven himself under fire as an ally of the glbt community by speaking up both publicly and privately against SJR-7, the amendment banning not only same sex marriage but banning any incident of marriage from being extended to same sex couples.  Further, Jon Elrod advises that he  agrees with an expansion of coverage in nondiscrimination legislation to ensure that glbt citizens are as protected as all others.  And he favors a military policy of recruiting and promoting based on no other factor than merit.

Second, Elrod has demonstrated a willingness to take these positions in a political environment in which he has had few natural allies.    (He was the only member of  the Indiana House Republican caucus publicly to oppose the marriage amendment and thereby invite the displeasure of the Republican Party's most extreme elements.    Opposing the Amendment as a Republican has meant few friends among opponents of the Amendment, the majority of whom have tended to be Democratic. )

Third, Jon Elrod is running for Congress at a time when Congress is in no danger of falling into Republican hands.   For moderate Republicans, independents and Democrats,  a vote for Elrod is in no way a vote for Republican extremism or for its control.  A vote for Elrod in no way forwards an anti-gay agenda in U.S. congress.  To the contrary, this election represents an appropriate opportunity to convey to the Republican Party both in the State of Indiana and nationally that Republican candidates who campaign on a platform of inclusion will be rewarded by voters.  Only this message will contribute to broader fundamental change in the Republican Party, change which is inevitable, but which must occur sooner rather than later in order for us to achieve real progress in our lifetimes.

Fourth, it is in the matter of achieving this fundamental change that the strongest argument for the election of Jon Elrod to Congress exists.  The apparatus of the Republican Party remains seized by a conservative perspective that increasingly conflicts with what most Americans, editorial boards, and corporate leaders believe, namely, that glbt citizens deserve to have our rights as full citizens acknowledged.    This conservative perspective conflicts with Republican principles in a way that an effective stand  within the Republican Party can and should be taken in order for broader progress to become possible.   

In my opinion, an ever increasing percentage of Republicans of all ages are  becoming intuitively uncomfortable with the Party's record of intolerance with regard to the GLBT community, and are looking for the philosophical ground on which to make a change.   Vocal elected Republicans  such as Elrod  gaining stature in the party can demonstrate that the right path exists in the Republican Party... towards the protection of the individual  guarantees that are inherent in the Bill of Rights, guarantees against the government encroachment of which Republicans are traditionally wary.

Occupying the office, Elrod  as congressman, and his perspective, would gain stature in Indiana Republican politics, enhancing a base for forward movement in the Indiana Republican Party at the state and local level.  He would offer a challenge in Washington from inside the Republican caucus to backward thinking elsewhere in the caucus.   He would break up the group-think of the Indiana Republican congressional delegation.

In contrast, Andre Carson while well-meaning, would have no more impact on glbt interests than to affirm from a back bench what is already the position of leading Democrats.  His candidacy and election would represent little challenge or change to any status quo either locally or nationally, little real opportunity for progress, no matter his personal merit. 

In short, with sincere thanks to Julia Carson, and respect to Andre Carson, I nevertheless believe that Indiana and National GLBT efforts are best served with the election of Jon Elrod to Congress in the coming special election.

Please consider contributing to Elrod's efforts through the following link: 

http://www.jonelrod.com/contribute.php

(Note:   Jon Elrod describes himself as pro-life.  I have noticed in the Republican Party that the label means less and less.    Republican women with whom I am acquainted describe themselves as pro-life in one breath and then  in the next breath say it is only their personal position and  should be up to the mother.   Elrod believes that Roe v Wade is in place, is likely to remain in place and abortion legal for the foreseeable future,  is not sympathetic to the various nit noid harassing measures that are designed more for wedge purposes than for real effect,  believes that there would always need to be exceptions to any attempt to restrict abortion and, given the status quo, assigns no priority to the issue. I would classify him, even if he would not himself, as one of those Republicans that would like to see the Party move on from the topic, and his election as representing no threat to pro-choice voters.   Of course, these are questions that pro-choice voters should ask for themselves.)

I appreciate a few inquiries I have received.  With the end of the legislative session, and the defeat (for the present) of at least of one the legislature's most villainous undertakings (an undertaking opposed by the editorial board of every newspaper in the state that spoke, large or small, Republican or Democrat, and by our state's leading corporations), I have been reassessing the focus of my personal energy, which has for many years been distracted from business.  As I have refocused, I have found an opportunity for my firm which appears to me both interesting and important,  and I have been enveloped in work upon it. 

There is discussion among First Republican board members about how best to organize to leverage our  position as representative of an important moderate wing of the GOP, and indeed as representative of the broad middle of Hoosier voters, cognizant of a county party and a state administration that we perceive as roughly aligned, if not in every detail, with our perspective. 

This platform will  serve the organization when  the organization is ready to speak.  For the moment though, I have assigned a consuming priority to my  personal business undertakings.   (In the meantime, I do invite any who have an interest in contributing and who share the organization's ideals to contact me if you wish to participate as a blogger on this platform.)

According to a report in the Indianapolis Star, Senator Pat Miller is intent on reintroducing a measure that would make it illegal to accept anything of value in exchange for arranging a surrogate adoption.

That's craziness.

Sure, it's a field that ought to be regulated, like any adoption, to ensure that fit parents are doing the adopting.  But if the free market can provide an intermediary to bring couples seeking a surrogate parent in touch with a woman interested in providing surrogacy, why destroy that mechanism?

The only answer, I think, is that Pat Miller wants to discourage surrogate adoption.

Surrogacy is an expensive proposition, wherein both prospective parents and prospective birth mother are taking substantial but calculated risks in order to achieve what other parents achieve naturally.  They are entering into that relationship for respectable reasons, and have a right, like all parents, to decide for themselves whether to have children at all, whether to adopt children in need, or whether seek a surrogate parent.

Why is Pat Miller seeking to end surrogacy?  She has been pursuing a public policy that is producing a surge in unwanted pregnancies by denying teenagers education, access to contraception, and access to abortion.  While it is hers (and ours) to hope that parents who are unable to have children would seek to adopt the needy ones that are rising in numbers, it is surely the right of parents to decide for themselves.

From our Principles:   FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE that government derives its power and authority from the individual, and that each person's ability, dignity, culture, religion, and freedom must be honored.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE that government should only endeavor to accomplish those functions that are essential to society, but are impractical or impossible for individuals or free enterprises to undertake.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE that individual initiative and the free enterprise system have given this nation an economy second to none, improved standards of living, and alleviated human suffering. Free enterprise and individual initiative must be enabled, protected, and promoted.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE that America’s future prosperity hinges on restrained government and taxation that is fair, responsible and limited.

A recent poll out indicates Giuliani continues to lead the field,  with the conservative vote divided.  In Indiana, I am aware of only two significant Republican movements, one for Giuliani and one for Romney.  If Romney is doing as poorly in Indiana as he is doing nationally, that should be a lesson to Republican leadership as to what kind of Republicans actually exist in Indiana, compared to those who seized party processes.  The farther to the right, the less support.  (We still have no information as to how much money the Romney folks managed to raise when he was in town.  Anyone?)

(In high profile state-wide elections, Indiana does not elect candidates perceived as right wing conservatives.  It should also be a lesson to Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Romney backer, who has migrated in his political profile from moderate to conservative.  In my estimation, he has threatened, perhaps even forfeited, his political viability.  )

In the beginning, the American motto was E Pluribus Unum, a Latin expression that appeared on all our currency and proclaimed to the world that we were a nation of diverse states, religions, and peoples brought together to produce one.  Like laminations of iron, folded and hammered again, a plurality combined into one is stronger.  Like laminated plywood, which can be stronger than a board of a single wood. 

The Founding Fathers in designing the Constitution generally reflected the intellectual deist consensus of the Enlightenment, that is, that IF there was a God, He was one who set the universe spinning and then generally let it progress in whichever direction it might move.  This was an acceptable answer to the question of why there would be so much misery and injustice in the world of an omnipotent and omniscient God.  Mankind (women need not apply) was on its own, and therefore had to emplace checks and balances upon itself, for no other check or balance would be afforded.  God, in the Constitution, was not mentioned.  To the contrary, a belief in God was specifically proscribed as any kind of a necessary qualification for office.

Under a President Lincoln, who himself demonstrated and spoke of no personal Christian faith, and who was attacked in Illinois by fundamentalists as irreligious, and who specifically and explicitly did NOT trust in God to resolve the great tribulation of our society, more religious men (noble abolitionists among them) prevailed upon the Treasury to imprint the motto In God We Trust on our currency alongside E Pluribus Unum.  On no currency does "In God We Trust " appear without a coincident statement that from our diversity as a nation comes our strength. 

Now a group of Hoosiers claiming to represent tradition have broken a pact by which America has quietly looked the other way upon a religious establishment where it previously had not existed.   In a land strengthened by people of many faiths in many Gods, and by some people of faith in none, a motto that was limited to coinage, a late addition that betrayed a lack of sympathy with the Enlightenment ideals of our founding,  that presumes to speak for all in a religious affirmation,  is pressed upon all Hoosiers through a mechanism of Government funding.  And the historic statement of American strength from its founding, E Pluribus Unum, is abandoned ignominiously, as if it were not relevant or, in fact, essential. 

In the absence of the historic statement of mutual strength drawn from diversity, the license Plate "In God We Trust" does not affirm America's central tradition; it abandons it.

From our Principles: 
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE that government derives its power and authority from the individual, and that each person's ability, dignity, culture, religion, and freedom must be honored.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE the separation of church and state enables people of all faiths and beliefs to coexist peacefully and religion to flourish in America, freeing us from religious strife and affording us domestic tranquility that is enduring and historically unprecedented. Religious principles must not be legislated.         
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE in equal rights, equal protection, equal justice, equal opportunity and equal responsibilities for all people, regardless of race, religion, creed, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or national origin.

In the wake of yesterday's ruling on abortion, I think it is appropriate to provide some thinking about this organization and its position on a mother's right to control her body as it balances with the value of the life within. First Republicans was founded especially by Republicans who were concerned that the Party had become too monolithic officially on a topic that actually divides Americans generally, and the Republican Party especially.

Why has this blog attended so much to  glbt rights?

Life/Choice is a topic on which I have tended to recuse myself.  When asked to join the board, I felt that my portfolio was mainly to ensure that the gay community's views were represented.  With a board otherwise of straight Republicans brought together on the topic of moderation, I imagined that others would represent the portfolio of women's autonomy.

To my surprise, there appeared to be unanimity on the board with regard to the rights of glbt citizens to nondiscrimination and unanimity of opposition to attempts to amend the Indiana Constitution.  As I felt the gay community under siege, I was moved to ensure that this unanimity was represented to the world at large, and fast, before the Constitution was irreparably damaged.  On the board, these positions were not met with opposition.

Life/choice issues

It was equally surprising to find that the positions of the board on the topic of abortion were not easily drawn to a consensus, and so this organization has been fairly silent on the topic.   That seems a shame, for the majority of Americans seem in polls to be united in a belief that while disagreement will always exist, the two sides should be able to find a way to co-exist without such polarity.

The language of this topic has lent itself to platitudes; it is appropriate to be more thoughtful. 

When does life begin?  It is a meaningless question, for it flows through us always, it is present in sperm and present in egg, and it is present in our cells at every stage except in the detour of death.   Life doesn't begin at conception; conception is the joining of two strands of life, not the genesis of new life from nothing.  When is life complete?  Not at conception either, for the mother's womb affords additional ingredients without which life would not be possible.

No, the question is not when does life begin, but when is human life vested with value sufficient to allow it to progress unimpeded?  On this, Humans disagree.  Some seem to vests  that value in the living sperm and in the living egg.  Others seem to vest that value when the living sperm and the living egg unite.  Others seem to vest that value when living sperm and living egg unite and implant in the uterus.  Others seem to vest that value when that life as received all its additional nutrients and has achieved viability.  Others seem to vest that value upon birth.  Others seem to vest that value when the infant has achieved and age of 1 and proven itself.  Others never vest that value.   These positions are all governed by mixtures of religion, science, morals, compassion, tradition, and instinct.

With these thoughts in mind, I would place myself among those First Republicans who believe this  organization should be developing and representing thoughtful discussions and even positions on topics of women's autonomy, abortion, sex education, contraception, disease prevention, abstinence -only education, pregnancy prevention, pre-natal care,  and the laws that affect these topics.  These discussions and positions may not be ones with which all agree, but I have hunch they would be of the variety and moderation with which most Americans would identify.

FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE that the stability of our society depends on the basic welfare of our people. Hunger, homelessness, poor health, and economic vulnerability are challenges that should not become insurmountable. To be great, our society must help those who cannot help themselves.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE that government derives its power and authority from the individual, and that each person's ability, dignity, culture, religion, and freedom must be honored.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights is the bedrock of American freedom.  The individual rights and freedoms established in federal and state constitutions must be protected from amendment and defended from encroachment.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE the separation of church and state enables people of all faiths and beliefs to coexist peacefully and religion to flourish in America, freeing us from religious strife and affording us domestic tranquility that is enduring and historically unprecedented. Religious principles must not be legislated.       
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE in equal rights, equal protection, equal justice, equal opportunity and equal responsibilities for all people, regardless of race, religion, creed, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or national origin.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE we must follow the example of our national and party founders by promoting respectful debate, applying reason, honoring the wisdom inherent in the past while rejecting its biases, and embracing thoughtfully such change as is necessary, beneficial, and just.

It won't be Evan Bayh.