2. I re-affirm my comments in 2004 that a legislative expansion of protections for glbt citizens will be the measure by which Governor Daniels should legitimately be judged, and that I believe he will be judged favorably. (I made this statement after the 2004 elections. In the course of the 2004 elections, I made observations about where Daniels stood relative to his opponent in matters of public policy, with the observation that the candidate that moved the ball the farthest forward in campaign would move the ball the farthest forward in office, and that the glbt community should support whoever that might be.)
With these caveats, I make the following observations:
First, the Governor has been under a barrage of attack from the religious right for his nondiscrimination policy incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity, with too little support emanating from the gay community, which has throughout been far too quiet while the leading policy in the state has been under determined and aggressive siege.
Second, nobody (neither Indiana Equality to my knowledge nor certainly the Governor's office) is prepared at this moment to announce the introduction of an amendment to the state civil rights code. For the Governor in any way to signal support at this time for an amendment to the State's civil rights code is to produce the conditions for pre-emptive mobilization of the our opponents across the state against his office and our interests. (The Governor cannot proactively endorse a county-level ordinance without begging the question of why the same would not be appropriate at the state level; the same obviously would be appropriate.) Such a signal from the Governor's office would surrender to the press and to the opposition any control over the pace and timing of amendment discussions. Instead, the coordination and direction of an amendment to the state civil rights code must be in the pro-active control of Indiana Equality in association with its allies and in coordination both publicly and privately with its political supporters.
Third, while the governor affirmed his belief that businesses should make their decisions within the bounds of existing civil rights statutes (and affirmed his own nondiscrimination policy), he endorsed the control the freedom the citizens of the county have to decide the rules. In so doing, note that the governor declined to endorse the view of conservative Republican members of the City-County Council that businesses have a right to discriminate against the LGBT community. Instead, he denied that businesses have any such right, and affirmed his own administration's views of discriminatory practices. Show that to Ginny Cain, Scott Schneider, Isaac Randolph, and every other Republican who voted against the amendment.
Finally, as any good Republican, the Governor expressed his reluctance to see rules imposed top-down on the whole state or all citizens. Of this carefully worded sentence, two observations are appropriate. First, the Governor expressed no opposition. Second, I suggest that the Governor has allowed room to finish the sentence in more than one way. I will make the following statement whole-heartedly, finishing the sentence in no way inconsistent with the all the Governor has said: "I'd be reluctant to see nondiscrimination laws imposed top-down on the whole state or all citizens, but liberty, justice, the equal protection of the laws, and the persistence of incidious discrimination against decent citizens leave us no other choice."