This is what "substantially similar" means

Indiana is one of the few states without marriage equality that doesn't have a ban in its constitution. The Right Wing in the state is trying to change that. But the constitution doesn't make that easy -- the exact same amendment text must be passed by the legislature twice with a legislative election in between.

The first such vote was in 2010. At the time the text was one that bans everything -- no gay marriage, no civil unions, no recognition of any kind. But the mood has shifted and progress has been made. Banning civil unions appears to be too cruel. Lots of big corporations and universities in Indiana are very much against the amendment because it compromises their attempt to recruit top talent. Who wants to be the last Hate State?

But if the GOP changes the text of the amendment they have to start over and their chances for voter approval in 2016 will be even lower.

So, the GOP is trying to have it both ways. They are working to pass the original text and a bill that says: This is what we mean by that text about "substantially similar" to marriage.

Watchers are quick to point out the amendment will be in the constitution and the explaining law will not. Their language conflicts. When judges get a case (and they will) they are obligated to look at one which might lead them to strike down the other. In addition, watchers are quick to point out all the mischief (Michigan banned domestic partner benefits for state and city workers because of its amendment) that "substantially similar" clause has caused.

The whole thing is currently in the House Judiciary Committee and on Monday they adjourned without voting. And today Indiana Governor Mike Pence repeated he is for the amendment and urged lawmakers to resolve it this year -- meaning don't change the text. Pence is also the keynote speaker for an anti-gay group next week.



According to the United Methodist Book of Discipline "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church." According to lots of church leaders at all levels, especially those hiring church musicians, this phrase has always been interpreted to refer to only clergy.

But the interim pastor of a United Methodist Church in Alexandria, Indiana took the "appointed to serve" phrase to mean all people in local church leadership. His District Superintendent backed him up. So a beloved choir director was not rehired (the history of the situation is convoluted enough that I won't go into why rehiring was necessary). The dispute also forced out an intermediary (it isn't clear which official church position he held).

The result: 80% of the congregation stopped attending.