Opponents and supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage filled the gallery Monday at the Senate chamber where a committee approved the measure. Photo by Paige Clark, TheStatehouseFile.com
By John Sittler
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – A Senate committee on Monday passed the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Indiana – without re-instating the controversial second sentence.
Proponents of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman joined oponents outside the Seante chamber on Monday. Photo by Paige Clark, TheStatehouseFile.com
But President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said he expects amendments will be offered when the measure hits the Senate floor on Thursday.
“Nothing should surprise you at this point,†Long said. “It is to the floor as I hoped it would be – un-amended – so that the entire Senate will have an opportunity to debate this and we’ll have a robust discussion.â€
House Joint Resolution 3 would define marriage in Indiana as the union between one man and one woman. It originally contained a clause that also banned any legal relationship “identical or substantially similar†to marriage, but the House voted last month to strip that language, which could have banned civil unions.
If the amendment passes the General Assembly in its current form, it would need to be approved a second time – in either 2015 or 2016 – before it could be placed on the ballot for ratification. But if the Senate puts the second sentence back in and the House approves that, it would go to the ballot this year.
Without exception, everyone that testified in support of HJR 3 Monday also supported the reintroduction of that sentence.
Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute, even said he would rather see the amendment defeated than placed on the ballot in its current form.
“Civil unions do not serve as a compromise or middle ground,†he said.
Smith also asked President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, to author an amendment that would replace the second sentence. Long quickly reprimanded Smith saying his request was “out of order.â€
Opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage held up signs Monday outside the Senate chamber where a committee approved the measure. Photo by Paige Clark, TheStatehouseFile.com
Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, agreed with Smith, saying neither supporters nor opponents of HJR 3 are happy with the constitutional measure in its current form.
The testimony from both sides mirrored the comments the House heard last month.
Supporters cited studies that said children do best when raised in a home with both a mother and a father.
“Marriage brings together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeps them together to raise the children of their union to maturity,†said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council.
But executives from both Cummins and Eli Lilly & Co. said the passage of HJR 3 would be harmful for business.
Steve Fry, senior vice president of human resources and diversity at Lilly, said that even a statewide campaign and November vote on the issue would “negatively impact our ability to recruit and retain talent.â€
Opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage wore red shirts and stickers Monday outside the Senate chamber where a committee approved the measure. Photo by Paige Clark, TheStatehouseFile.com
Jackie Simmons, vice president and general council for Indiana University, said she was pleased with the removal of the second sentence and hoped the Senate would keep the clause out of HJR 3.
She said if HJR 3 passed with the second sentence, IU would be forced to alter its partner benefit plan to accommodate it – creating rules that would make the plan more cumbersome and possibly more expensive. That happened at the University of Kentucky after a similar amendment passed in the commonwealth and the state attorney general ruled the school’s benefits package was substantially similar to marriage.
“At IU, we don’t want to have to follow Kentucky in anything,†Simmons said to laughter in the Senate chamber.
Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, questioned whether the proposal is even one that should be put to the voters. “There is not a rational basis for this kind of proposal,†he said.
Lanane said HJR 3 is an idea whose time has come and gone.
“Should we let it have a long, lingering death, or put it out of its misery at this time?†he said.
The Senate Rules Committee voted 8-4 along party lines to pass HJR 3 in its current form.
John Sittler is a reporter with TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students
Well. There it is. The Indiana Legislature, against the wishes of its major employers, wishes to bring it to a vote on whether the State is:
1. Indiana is a Bigot State
2. Indiana is not a Bigot State.
What a productive use of the State’s share of mind and financial resources….
So the voters of Indiana must submit to the will of two corporations?
The majority of states have constitutionally defined marriage as one man and one woman, are they all economic backwaters?
Until we can see that there is more and better options than “bigot,” this issue is going to be decisive. The left’s “my way or the highway” approach is just as counter productive as any moralistic absolute from the right.
“Marriage brings together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeps them together to raise the children of their union to maturity,†said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. ~~ StatehouseFile.com article
Senior fellow Sprigg needs to do some more ‘family research’ half of them don’t. They end up in divorce at some point, with vary degrees of misery foisted on any children born of the unhappy union.
Fellow Sprigg should also consider that marriage is in no way necessary for a couple to have children.
Looks like the reprobate majority in the Indiana Legislature has let itself be maneuvered up a tree by people with a religious agenda.
Sadly, it would appear that the same thing happens in all marriage, whether heterosexual, or not. This issue is not worthy of legislation. As a Christian, I am entitled to my beliefs as much as any heathen or pagan, but the government has no responsibility or right to dictate who should be married. Marriage is an individual choice, and should be recognized by secular legal authority, whether or not it is sinful will be determined by a judge more qualified than anyone else on Earth. This much like abortion keeps republicans out of office. Learn to let it go.
Contrary to popular belief, there are now 4 wise men.
Very clear, concise heart felt post.
+
Beautifully stated. Thank you.
So, we shouldn’t draw a line for a right to marriage, (although same sex marriage draws a line which excludes others that meet the same qualifications) but we draw a line south of the womb to decide who has the right to life or not?
11 million innocent lives were taken by the Nazi Holocaust. Over 50 million have been taken by the the Holocaust in the womb. Should we have just overlook what Hitler did? as a Christian, how do you explain your apathetic approach to the Jesus Who said “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”
http://themetapicture.com/see-you-later-im-going-to-sleep/
Geographically Indiana is above the Maxon Dixon line but her heart lies in Dixie. Smokies anyone??
Soon Pence and his minions will be handing out Bibles to the sick and infirmed so they can pray it all away. Hiring secret police to stalk women and inspect their lady parts would be their ultimate fantasy jobs program
♫ Onward christian soldiers♫
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhtqv9Y_KTk
Amen Brother Benton!
Truly embarrassing for our state and a violation of individuals liberty.
The horse has left the barn on this one. The deadenders are left to wonder what the hayish stuff is on their boots. Marriage equality is coming to a state near you. Very near you.
Kentucky will now be recognizing gay marriages.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20140212/NEWS10/302120050/Kentucky-ban-gay-marriages-from-other-states-struck-down-by-federal-judge
From your article, ““If a state like Utah were ever to legalize polygamy, Kentucky would be forced to recognize it under this decision,†Cothran added.”
It’s more of a never-ender than a dead-ender.
Enoch, quick go here: https://city-countyobserver.com/2014/02/11/13428/
Somebody’s put up a current picture of me.
Nobel looking kemosabe. You look just like I imagined you..uh..uh..uh..not that I fantasize about you much. Much. Do you ever ride around the broke back mountain range? Not that I have ever been there…maybe one or ten times. mom just came in the basement. POS (parent over shoulder) I have to go.
Kentucky might offer a lot of unique marriage choices to recognize.
That issue would be a different one….
….you’re not considering that when you make these silly claims.
That issue would be “Can a Citizen marriage with more than two Citizens be valid?”
That is an entirely different legal case.
I left this emoticon off my post. 🙂 I didn’t think it would be necessary.
No it’s not entirely different. If Utah would legalize polygamy, then why would Kentucky not have to recognize it? Maybe Three Amigos want to marry in Utah and relocate to an old Kentucky home. If their legal marriage is not recognized, then what happens to your equality in marriage?
How dare you hijack this thread to poke it in the eye of bigots everywhere! The pain, humilation, and suffering these bigots will feel is incalculable.
The LGBT in this country should be happy with the sh@t sandwiches handed out to them by the bigots! Only 90% of LGBT youth are bullied in this country and hundreds of them committ suicide every year that’s nothing to what the bigots feel!
Inequality now, inequality forever.
Pleast note the dripping sarcasm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhtqv9Y_KTk
Remember all of the old “politically incorrect” Kentuckian jokes that we used to tell in Indiana? Now, they’re “Hoosier jokes” and they’re told all over the country.
Comments are closed.