If you want an idea of what could happen if the marriage amendment gets on the ballot in Indiana this November, you may want to head north to Minnesota.

The North Star State took up the amendment in 2012. It was defeated 52-47 and cost Republicans control of the State Senate.

We spoke with Jack Tomczak of News Talk AM 1160 in the Twin Cities on WIBC-FM’s “Abdul at-Large” program.  He has observed the issue since 2000.

You can hear his comments below, they run approximately 15 minutes.

Leon-Tailored Audio: KTLK Radio Hose Jack Tomczak on Minnesotans Rejected of Marriage Amendment

The Indiana Senate Rules Committee will hear testimony on HJR-3 Monday afternoon.

I have a running joke I use in my standup comedy act about marriage, some days my wife wins and other days my wife wins.  (Rimshot!)  Of course marriage is give and take and some days one side wins and some days the other side does.

Luckily for both sides in the marriage amendment debate, they can both claim some sort of victory this week.

The House voted this week, 52-43, to amend HJR-3 and strike the second sentence and then it went ahead and passed the full measure 57-40.

Both these moves were enough to make supporters and opponents of the marriage amendment joyful and majorly annoyed at the same time.  Opponents were glad to get  HJR-3  amended but upset that it passed the full chamber, the reverse was true with the supporters.

Now the battle moves over the Senate.

Senators have the option of passing the amendment “as is” which would mean another session of the General Assembly would have to pass it in either 2015 or 2016 for it to get on the ballot.  Or it can amend HJR-3 and put the original language back in and hope the House concurs.  If it  doesn’t HJR-3 is dead.

Either way, I get the sneaky suspicion we are going to be in for a few more mixed victories before all this is said and done as both sides turn up the heat on the Senate to try and score the most important victory in this debate, the last one.

I spoke this weekend with Chris Smith, he is the son of House Elections Committee Chairman Milo Smith which passed, 9-3, HJR-3, the amendment banning gay marriage in Indiana..   Chris is gay and took to Facebook to criticize the House Republicans’ actions.

On his Facebook page Chris wrote…

Hello everyone. I am the gay son of Representative Milo Smith, chairman of the Elections Committee that just passed HJR-3 onto the full House. I’m not here to badmouth my dad. I’m terribly disappointed in his decision and beliefs, but he’s not going to change them now if he hasn’t after all these years of knowing I am gay. I am here to support you and my friends who remain in Indiana. They are my extended family.

Chris, who lives in California, agreed to answer a few questions about why posted his comments in social media.

1. Why did you decide to go public and post your comments to Facebook?

I have a lot of friends in Indiana still, and I wanted them to know I have their back. They are my extended family. Many of them are legally married in other states but have returned to Indiana only to be treated as second-class citizens.

2. Does this undermine your relationship with your family, should you have kept your comments private?

I’m not a very private person, so I have no problems being public with my opinions. If anything undermines the relationship with my family, it’s their belief that I’m not an equal. One of my sisters has been completely supportive and we have a fantastic relationship.

3. What is your response that Hoosiers should have to right to vote on HJR-3, regardless of whether they support it or oppose it?

No one should have the right to vote on civil rights. Period. Marriage is a contractual issue and individuals have the basic right to contract without outside interference. Ideally, I’d prefer to see government get out of the marriage business altogether. No one should have to ask permission to get married, whether they are gay or straight.

4.  Do you feel your comments undermine your Dad’s position on the issue?

I hope so. I believe he’s coming at it from strictly a religious perspective, which has no room in political discourse.

5.  What has the reaction been to your post?

I’m overwhelmed by the support I’ve received. I’ve had dozens of new friend requests on Facebook and several private messages. I’ve read every single comment to my post on the Indiana Equality Facebook group and feel blessed by the outpouring of love and support. My partner has warned me against a possible backlash, but I haven’t seen it. I didn’t post in order to get all the feedback. I posted because I wanted everyone in Indiana to know I’m with them in this. Love and family will prevail.

6.  Do you think there are a lot of Republican families in your position?

Well, I don’t know there are other political families in the same position, but I know a lot of families are, in general. I’ve read the comments about how parents disowned their gay children. I’m fortunate that my family didn’t disown me. I’m not saying it’s been easy, but I know I’m loved no matter my sexual orientation.

The Indiana House is scheduled to hear amendments Monday afternoon to HJR-3.

One of the big arguments in the debate over HJR-3, the marriage amendment, is Hoosiers should have the right to vote and one person should not prevent that from happening.

Fair enough.

In a democracy, even though we live in a constitutional republic, citizens should have their voices heard.  But if that argument is good enough for the amendment to ban same-sex marriage, shouldn’t it be good enough for some other items?

For example, during the debate over Right-to-Work, my Democratic friends proposed putting it to a referendum which my Republicans friends shot down.

When we talked about mass transit, some lawmakers don’t want to give Central Indiana residents the right to vote whether to raise their own taxes to pay for expanded service, even though  we do allow school districts to recapture dollars lost due to property tax caps via referendum.

I think if we are going to use referenda and constitutional amendments to make public policy then I think we should throw a few other items on the table and resolve some issues once and for all.

Minimum Wage

• We are having a debate about the minimum wage and income inequality in this country, so why not just put it on the ballot and let Hoosiers decide, since they are the ones who ultimately bear the costs anyway?

School Vouchers

• Lawmakers go back and forth every year on this topic.  Instead of expanding vouchers in baby steps, let’s put universal vouchers on the ballot and let Hoosiers decide where they want their money to go?

Sunday Sales (You knew this was coming)

• Instead of a handful of people deciding whether you can buy alcohol on Sunday, let the people decide whether they want to get booze.   Right now they have no choice, this way, Hoosiers can decide whether they want to get tanked before football.

Those are just a few.  I am sure you could come up with a lot more.  In fact, why don’t we just get rid of the legislature altogether and have government by referendum?   Although if we did put that up for a vote, I think I know what the outcome would be.

One of nice things about being a political pundit is you know you’re winning the debate when people attack you instead of the argument that you make.    This is especially true in the case of Democratic City-County Councilor Vern Brown.

In a recent letter to the editor in the Indy Star, Brown said he was offended by my recent comments regarding black men in Indy killing each other.  I find it funny that Brown seems more upset with me than the criminals who are doing the shooting and killing.

Now this would also be the point in the narrative where I would tell Brown the urban equivalent of “give me a break”, but I doubt it would do much good, so my advice is for him to redirect his anger.

Brown says, as black man, his life should not be valued less than other races or ethnic groups; then maybe he should be telling that to black men who are killing each other.

Brown says he’s offended that we are allowing people to die because of the color of their skin.  You’d think he’d direct that at the people pulling the trigger because they also the same skin color because the last time I checked the guys who show up in the ambulance are trying to save black lives.

Brown closes out his letter by saying that we will only succeed when the murder rate at 42^nd and Post Road is the same as 86^th & Meridian.  Well one way to make that happen is for the folks who live on 42^nd street to start behaving like they live on 86^th Street.

It is much easier for people like Brown to blame the bearer of bad news rather than the individuals who are actually responsible for the bad news that was created in the first place.

Give me a break!

If you are a supporter of the HJR-3, the latest poll by Indiana House and Senate Republicans cannot make you feel good, especially if you break it down and really dig into it.

While on the surface, an HJR-3 supporter might think it’s good news…

• 53% of those surveyed support the amendment*
• 55% favor amending the state Constitution to say marriage should be between one man and one woman.
• 53% oppose allowing gay couples to marry.

Good news right, well this is why you read everything!

• When told HJR-3 could ban civil unions and prohibit domestic partner benefits, opposition rises to 54%.
• 55% says gays and lesbians should either be allowed to marry, have civil unions or domestic partner benefits.  Only 38% think there should be no legal recognition of their relationships.
• 50% of voters say the amendment is not a priority.
• 83% of voters say job creation is the most important issue in the state, only 35% say HJR-3 is the most important issue.

I could go on and on, but I won’t.   But you can see a copy of the poll yourself by clicking here.   Read it a couple of times and tell me what you think.  And if you want to hear my interview with the pollster, click here.

And by the way, this poll was done by surveying 800 registered voters and a margin of error of  +/- 3.5%.   So there’s a chance that 53% support is really 49.5%.    And please note, no one has begun spending the millions on messaging just yet.

by Richard Hickman,  Mayor, Angola, IN

President, Indiana Association of Cities and Towns

New Year’s resolutions can be cliché, so it’s amazing how many of us get sucked into making them each year.

Even if we don’t write them down or share them at parties, many of us still have at least a short list in our heads of the things we are going to accomplish or do differently this year.

2014 marks my 13^th year of service as the mayor of Angola and I was recently elected President of the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns.  So, this year my resolutions are shall we say, fairly ambitious?

My New Year’s resolutions seek to reverse the thinking that has brought years of laws and mandates that assume all municipal governments in Indiana need to be painted with same broad brush and that governing our cities and towns from the statehouse is good public policy.  If I’m successful, lawmakers will trust local municipal leaders to serve their constituents.

Resolution #1 – Support Legislation that Trusts Local Decision Making

Good legislation that respects municipal governments’ role in serving our communities should be recognized.  I resolve to work with my fellow mayors and other city and town officials to show appreciation to legislators that sponsor legislation that gives deference to home rule.

Resolution #2 – Respond Quickly with our Facts and Expertise

When lawmakers consider bills that impact municipal governments I resolve to collaborate with my fellow municipal leaders to respond to their proposals with facts garnered from our day to day service on the front lines of our communities.  It seems entirely reasonable that lawmakers need this expertise in order to make informed decisions about bills impacting cities and towns and the constituents we both serve.

Resolution #3 – Engage in Problem Solving to Avoid Broad-brush Legislation

Often times, and more so in recent years, lawmakers use statewide legislation to address a local conflict or concern raised by one constituent.  I resolve to encourage municipal officials around the state to work cooperatively with legislators to engage them more in local problem solving in an effort to avoid one-size-fits-all legislation.  Solutions to town issues belong in town hall. I likewise encourage legislators to trust local officials to be the chief problem solvers in Hoosier communities.

Resolution #4 – Build Cooperative Relationships

I resolve to work hard to reach those inside the limestone with a message of cooperation that fosters trust and goodwill between lawmakers and my fellow elected and appointed city and town officials.  This tone could set the stage for more collaboration and hopefully an environment that allows lawmakers to leave local decision making in the hands of those trusted by voters to make such decisions.

Each New Year brings optimism and big thinking.  That’s no different whether you’re a mayor, legislator or constituent.  In this time of new beginnings and open-mindedness, I am hopeful that lawmakers can embrace the Trust Local message that I, the Indiana Conference of Mayors and IACT have resolved to pursue.

For more information on Trust Local visitwww.trustlocalindiana.com, on Twitter @TrustLocalIN, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/trustlocalindiana