By John Sittler and Danielle Faczan
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – House Republicans introduced a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage Thursday, along with a supplementary bill meant to address concerns that have led some lawmakers to reassess their votes for the proposal.
Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said the bill addresses questions that “people are validly raising, in most cases†by clarifying that the constitutional amendment would not prevent universities and private businesses from providing domestic partner benefits, wouldn’t impact the state’s domestic violence laws and would not usurp local human rights ordinances.
“Benefits are very clearly not invalidated through the amendment,†Bosma said. Indiana University, for example, would continue to be able to offer domestic partner benefits that it’s leaders had worried the amendment could quash, he said.
Still, the new Republican proposal left some observers – and maybe even some lawmakers – confused about whether the amendment would still ban civil unions – which are legally like marriage.
Bosma, for example, said the amendment would prohibit civil unions, while allowing couples to retain benefits through domestic partnerships.
“Civil unions are essentially marriage by another name,†he said. “Domestic partnerships are something different and it depends on what the nuances are on what a statute would say in that regard or somebody’s benefits would say in that regard.â€
But Senate President ProTem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said he wasn’t sure over the exact definitions of the two terms.
“I can’t define a civil union for you,†he said. “I am not sure I can find anybody that can effectively define a civil union for you. Domestic partnerships are more definitive. They are more of them out there.â€
And Joel Schumm, clinical professor of law at Indiana-Purdue at Indianapolis, said he believes the addition of a 70-line statute makes the legislation confusing. He said the bill only reflects the intent of the current session.
“The biggest problems are that the statute seems contradictory of the language in the constitutional amendment, and what the statute says may not be what voters want or even know about,†Schumm said. “This makes things more confusing and creates uncertainty, which can lead to litigation.â€
But Bosma said, “I believe that the language gives future legislators and generations, and perhaps the current one, the ability to provide for unmarried couples regardless of their orientation. I think that it is a smart addition to make that clear.â€
House Joint Resolution 3, passed two years ago as HJR 6, defines marriage as the union of one man and woman and is designed to protect an existing state law with the same language. The amendment also says that a “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.â€
House Bill 1153 says that the second part of the amendment “prohibits the state from circumventing†the marriage definition. But it lists a variety of benefits and opportunities that cannot be restricted or infringed upon by the constitutional amendment.
Bosma said the goal is not to take something away from someone that is receiving it today, and that HB 1153 simply clarifies the legislation for educational institutions, schools and counties. He also said powers of attorney, wills and other documents would remain valid.
He said private businesses, organizations or businesses can set their own rules. “It is a decision by them, if they extend those benefits, and their benefit or insurance provider agrees to it, then those are not invalidated,†he said.
“The purpose of the amendment is solely, in my view, to protect the statute,†Bosma said. Indiana is one of only four states to have a marriage-defining law not protected by a constitutional amendment. However, most were passed several years ago, when public opinion was more negative about same-sex marriage.
Now, public opinion polls show that even in Indiana – where the amendment was popular just a few years – voters are split on the issue.
Freedom Indiana campaign chair Megan Robertson said the bill shows that the amendment was not written well the first time.
“It’s disappointing that they obviously feel there is a problem with the original language, enough that they have to have this extra bill to clarify what they originally meant,†she said. “Instead of going back and doing it right on something as important as an amendment to our constitution, they’re just going to push it through. It’s really disappointing.â€
However, Bosma said it’s not unusual for a bill offering a legislative intent to accompany a measure, citing the Rockport coal-to-gas plant legislation as the most recent example. He said the supplementary bill cannot alter the clear language of the amendment but, “it establishes the intent of the legislature in adopting the amendment.†That could be useful in court.
Bosma said the marriage debate will continue regardless of whether the amendment passes and that eventually a lawsuit to be filed to try to overturn it, as has been done in 30 other states. So Bosma said he thought it was “quite appropriate†to give the courts, voters and legislators some clarity on precisely what the language does and does not do.
“To the extent that policy makers can, in an official capacity, answer those questions, I think that’s a positive for the process,†he said.
He went on to say that he was pleased by the General Assembly’s expression of intent.
But Robertson compared the addition of a secondary bill to doing one’s homework wrong the first time. Instead of redoing it and telling people what one really means, “just do it right the first time.â€
She said it is not the legislature’s duty to define what the state constitution says.
“It’s a constitutional amendment, it’s approved by the voters and then it goes into the constitution and stands on its own,†Robertson said. “Unless the people – the voters – are going to approve the secondary bill as well, then it really doesn’t have much standing.â€
There was also some controversy regarding the renaming of the proposed amendment. Robertson said in a statement that it was renumbered to confuse Hoosier voters.
“One thing I’ve heard is that they’ve renamed it because it has half the support it used to have, which I thought was interesting and happens to probably be true,†she said. “I think it’s political gamesmanship that really doesn’t have any place in this process.â€
Freedom Indiana has created a number of signs and advertising that refers to HJR 6.
Bosma said the numbering is merely a reflection of when the legislation was filed and that there probably won’t even be an HJR 6 this session.
Bosma also addressed concerns about how the amendment could affect business in Indiana. Officials at two of the state’s largest employers – Cummins and Eli Lily & Co. – have said they are worried about how the amendment will affect who they can hire.
“If I thought it was disastrous for Indiana I wouldn’t be doing it,†Bosma said. “I certainly don’t think it is,†he said, noting that eight of the top 10 “fast growth states†– including the entire Top 5 – have a similar amendment.
Still, pressure has been mounting on lawmakers about the marriage fight. Advance America – a conservative group – started television ads about the issue this week while Freedom Indiana delivered letters from 6,000 Hoosiers to lawmakers.
Bosma said he recognized that legislators could possibly face political fallout from their decision on the marriage issue. He said he tried to follow his father’s advice to “do what’s right and let the politics shake out for itself.â€
“I’ve done nothing other than encourage people to vote their conscience and to do what they think is right on this issue,†he said.
He said it would be up to each member to make up his or her mind as to how to make their decision, but that, “I don’t believe most people here make their decisions based on threats, or promises, or concern for their political future.â€
Bosma said he had received a pledge of unlimited campaign funding to make this issue go away. He refrained from naming the person because he or she might have violated state and federal law.
“I was shocked to receive it and brought it to that person’s attention what it sounded like,†he said.
Bosma said much of his support for the amendment – and the bill – stemmed from his desire to see the issue decided by the people of Indiana. He said he did not think it was appropriate for this issue to be decided by one activist judge with one plaintiff.
“My preference is that the decision in this regard, whatever it may be, is made by elected officials and ultimately the people and not by an activist judge,†he said.
“I think the right place for these decisions to be made, including the decision as to what a marriage is or is not, is by the elected officials, and, ultimately, the people,†Bosma said.
House Minority Leader Rep. Scott Pelath, D- Michigan City echoed Bosma.
“They don’t want a single judge redefining marriage,†Pelath said. “They don’t want an activist judge making a decisionâ€
Pelath said the marriage amendment may be the “issue of the session,†although he wants to focus on other things.
He said his chief concerns with HJR 3 were corporations providing benefits for employees, domestic violence laws, wills, living wills, visitation rights and local ordinances.
According to Pelath, the reasoning behind HB1153 was that the Republicans “felt guilty†abou the questions raised by the amendment. But he said “it doesn’t actually do anything.â€
John Sittler is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.
How many jobs does this bs create?
I know it is keeping one new business from starting. I want to start a same-sex wedding planning business. I’ve got a caterer on board and a couple of officiants lined up.
Add a limo to Illinois justice of the peace to the mix and you have all you need. Ride over to Illinois for a ceremony and come back here for the party. That would be sort of in their face and I bet you could do some business. Good Luck.
I do have a limo service I’m sure would sign on, but my clients want to marry here, at home.
You can convince them to take a field trip for the real ceremony then to do a reproduction of the service at home an hour later when the celebration starts.
Why go to Illinois for a ceremony? You can have one here and it will have the sane affect as getting married in Illinois.
Oh fooey LKB. Same sex couples get married in Indiana, so just start your business or stop the drama.
Where do you get off ordering me not to voice my opinion? When you start your “drama” meme, you hurt your case, so please proceed!
I didn’t tell you not to voice your opinion. I told you that you starting a same sex wedding service is fooey and drama. If your going to start a same sex wedding service, then start it. But why do you want to discriminate against heterosexual marriages with your wedding services? Any way, I thought you were running of to the hills of Belize.
Replying here in absence of button for IE! You really have no imagination or sense of humor, do you?
I do, but guess I missed your pun.
IE, there was no “pun”. You clearly don’t know what a pun is.
Also, Friday it was ruled that the same-sex marriages that were performed in Utah before Justice Sotomayor issued the “stay” WERE ruled to be valid in the eyes of the Federal government. So, your “WRONG” is wrong!
Here’s the reason for the additional “bill.” It’s being filed because they want to change the language of the current bill, and they don’t want to have to start all over again, putting off their bigoted amendment until 2016.
The Indiana GOP knows that by 2016, there will probably be even more people accepting of marriage equality, and it’ll be impossible to insert the discrimination into our Constitution.
Nope. C’mon guys. You have to START OVER if you want to maintain your bigotry!
They know its “now or never.” If they don’t waste the time and money now, it’s going to be all over.
SCOTUS is saying that the Utah marriages that took place before the stay was issued are valid. That is bound to make for some unhappy bigots.
Wrong LKB. SCOTUS has halted same sex marriages in Utah until the appeal is decided.
What has happened is that the DOJ, holder and Obama, have chosen to ignore both the state and the courts in recognizing this less than legal marriages.
No matter where one stands on this issue, this overreaching by the Obama a administration should be a cause of concern for everyone.
The issue needs to be decided by the states, legally, and with reason rather than emotion.
Or you can just keep calling people bigots because they don’t agree with LKB.
Apparently you didn’t read what I wrote. A stay was granted on performing more same sex marriages in Utah, until a more complete ruling comes down.
My point, which I think was pretty clear, is that yesterday it was ruled that the same sex marriages that were ALREADY performed are being deemed valid by the Federal Government. Get it, now?
Again, who are you to censor my right to call bigots what they are? FYI: I call them bigots because that is what they are, not because I disagree with them. A bigot by any other name stinks as bad…
I read perfectly fine. You said SCOTUS said the marriages preformed were valid. They DID NOT say that.
Also, I did not say you can’t call people bigots. I said you call them that because they disagree with you. Am I the only one who has said something about your incessant name calling? It does not help your points but shows that you can’t maintain an intellectual dialogue on this issue. All your side has is calling people bigots.
Well, I, for one, only call people bigots when they show the world that they ARE.
IE, you are.
I see Lucy, anyone who is not like you or has a different opinion than you is a bigot. Very open minded.
Marriage equality would be licensing any combination of unions based on consent and commitment that would petition the state. Same sex marriage is about adding only homosexuals to the definition of marriage and therefore denying it to others which creates discrimination and bigotry. Giving special rights to one group and denying it to others who have the same qualifications is bigotry.
Okay, I’ll go with “marriage equality”, but “same-sex” marriage is likely the way I will refer to it from time-to-time. Feel free to ridicule me when I do that, because I know it makes you feel better about yourself to do things like that.
Let me be clear: I am in favor of full marriage equality, and believe it is supported by the first article of the 14th Ammendment.
I will continue to state my belief as freely as you state yours, whether you see fit to try to “shush” me or not.
Oh stop the alligator tears and making it all about you. Nor have I tried to shush you.
I challenge ideas, not ridicule people. If you who support marriage equality could think about your positions rather than calling everyone who disagrees a bigot, then real solution that would be fair and acceptable to all could be found.
Indiana needs to address this issue or it will be decided for us by a federal court.
It will be decided in Federal Court, either way.
Yes, it will LKB, and that not where it should become law. Most importantly, the DOJ should not bypass a constitution and court to recognize these marriages as legal. I hope we could both see the problem with the executive branch being both legislator and judiciary.
The proper way to address this issue in Indiana is by constitutional amendment. Why couldn’t the legislators who support same sex marriage push to have the amendment include same sex unions?
IE says “The proper way to address this issue in Indiana is by constitutional amendment. Why couldn’t the legislators who support same sex marriage push to have the amendment include same sex unions?”
Why would they do that? First, there is no “seperate but equal”. Second, it is an affront to same sex couples and the Constitution to imply that it is acceptable to vote on whether or not they are entitled to basic human rights.
It is not a separate but equal issue, and there is no “right” to marriage. Marriage is not in our state or federal constitution. That is why you have to add the qualifier “basic” to make it appear as if there is a right where one does not exist.
We are deciding who qualifies for a marriage license. Are we denying 14 year olds a basic right because they do not qualify for a driver’s license?
However, when we qualify homosexuals for this “basic right” based solely on their consent and commitment, yet deny it to other unions, then we are denying one group the rights granted to another.
You seem to agree with me on that if we are going to add two of the same sex to the qualifications for a marriage license, then it is not equality. Therefore you continue to back a change that you feel is not equal and therefore denies your “basic rights” to others. Could there not be a better solution if we would only admit the apparent flaws?
It would be unconstitutional to vote on denying homosexuals or any group access to rights others have. That is not what this amendment does.
A referendum is the constitutional method to change our constitution. Those who oppose this referendum are denying the people of Indiana their constitutional due process.
There may be a large group of us that has been raked over the coals thru the court system that would be in favor of a “ban on any type” of marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The word “marriage” should be striped from the government hands and replaced with “civil union”. This “civil union” would cover all people and takes religion out of this issue. Everyone united by a religion representative, or a government associate are covered under this.
Now “marriage” is put back to the religion sector where it belongs. Being “married” becomes a higher standard, for one would had to be united based on the believes of that religion. This group would be both “civil” and “religiously” united!
If a religious group would morphine into allowing same sex to marry inside their
group, I’m no bible thumper, but I know that’s handle somewhere in “Bible” making this religion group a farce.
There is no religious requirements, qualifications, or authorization in a marriage license. It is secular. Civil unions are just marriage licenses lite.
Homosexuals can already have religious marriages and that is something I would defend.
Perhaps government should get out of marriage, especially if we change the qualification to consent and commitment but only for two of the same sex, but do we really want to destroy eons of past practice because homosexuals want state certification of their unions? Are we going to nullify all marriages? If so, then homosexual marriage would have indeed destroyed heterosexual marriage.
The expression is “crocodile tears” and you obviously don’t know what it means. It is used to refer to false sympathy.
‘Bosma said he had received a pledge of unlimited campaign funding to make this issue go away. He refrained from naming the person because he or she might have violated state and federal law.
“I was shocked to receive it and brought it to that person’s attention what it sounded like,†he said.’
~~~~
I’m shocked too. Shocked that Bosma claims to have received a bribe attempt and hasn’t reported the person who tendered it to the proper federal authorities. Maybe it didn’t happen, maybe Bosma is just blowing smoke to try to cover his bigoted position.
Or maybe he is a graduate of the Chris Christie school of political ethics!
I still think this is going to die in committee. The smart Republicans now know they created a monster, and they want to smother it in its crib.
A sure way to accomplish that would be put a baby Christie in the crib with Bad Bill. The Republicans are backpedaling for sure but I think it’ll come out of the Judiciary Committee to assuage the easily hurt ‘Baggers. They changed the bill’s name but they can’t change the bigotry that drove it to this point.
The Bully Christie didn’t do himself any favors today with the Friday afternoon document dump. That always looks suspicious.
He is so caught. I can hardly wait for the other shoe to drop. I expect the documents that went out today are going to be the ones that get him.
The fun is really going to start when the fired toadies’ lawyers get them an immunity deal. Let the bullying begin!
More and more information is coming out that leads me to believe the true target of “Bridge-gate” was the Democratic legislature leader who represents Ft. Lee. She is a woman of about my age (66), who Christie already said someone needed to “take a bat to.” I believe her name is Loretta Weinstein, but will verify that later.
It is now crystal clear that the Bully of Jersey is not going to bulldoze his choice into the office of the NJ Attorney General on Tuesday, and the legislature is going to renew the subpoena power in this matter.
There is going to be a real circus when the fired cronies get their immunity agreements!
The lady in question’s name is “Loretta Weinberg”, and she is likely going to wind up as Christie and his thug’s real target. What kind of a man suggests that someone should assault a woman of any age, much less near 70, with a ball bat?
There is no limit to campaign donations for state elections. Even if this happened and those exact words were spoken, it in no legal aspect can be construed to be a bribery attempt.
I will not attempt to once again cite the difference between state and federal governments and the elected positions which comprise them. Liberals just can’t grasp it.
Try offering whatever money you can scrape together to a high ranking state legislator contingent on him ‘making an issue go away’ and see how you fare. You’d likely be frog-walked out of the capitol and hoping for a bond hearing a day or so in the future. If you followed your own worthless legal advice, the sharing of which you are liberal with but would embarrass those able to feel shame (or understand the law), you’d be facing trillions of years.
Some people are so rabidly partisan they just can’t grasp it. Being spoon fed radical constitutionalist web sites just make folks dumber. Many are already at the edge of their working margin and really can’t afford much more of a dumbing down.
Oh, I’m not so sure about that. A smidgen more dumbing down, and they can get a government check for being dumb. Of course, it won’t make them “takers” because they “worked for it.”
“Bosma said much of his support for the amendment – and the bill – stemmed from his desire to see the issue decided by the people of Indiana. He said he did not think it was appropriate for this issue to be decided by one activist judge with one plaintiff.”
Exactly. Indiana has waited long enough to do what 29 other states have already accomplished. Churches and other organizations need to also add a statement defining marriage to their constitutions or they will be facing court challenges.
IE says: “Indiana has waited long enough to do what 29 other states have already accomplished.”
Should be: “Indiana has waited long enough to shove their bigotry onto the Hoosier populace the way that 29 other states have already done.”
There! I fixed it for you!
IE, your posts make me laugh. You’re losing this fight for bigotry, and the fact that you don’t seem to realize it is comical.
Deja Vu, all over again, isn’t it?
Yes it is, the sinister sisters of liberalism together again. Yea!
Sarah, I know it’s easier on your mind to yell bigot at anyone who thinks differently than you, but do you have anything construction to contribute
What makes you think Sarah is in the construction business?
Got to love spell checker. 🙂
Comments are closed.