Senate passes marriage amendment – without civil unions ban

25

By John Sittler and Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – The session’s hottest issue fizzled to a close Monday as the Indiana Senate passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage – but without the ban on civil unions that some conservatives had advocated.

State Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, said Monday that - with some exceptions - the best families are those that have a man and a woman as parents. Photo by Lesley Weidenbener, TheStatehouseFile.com

State Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, said Monday that – with some exceptions – the best families are those that have a man and a woman as parents. Photo by Lesley Weidenbener, TheStatehouseFile.com

That missing second sentence of the amendment means House Joint Resolution 3 will need to be approved again in 2015 or 2016 before it can go on the ballot for ratification by voters. But with public opinion shifting on the issue and courts increasingly ordering states to open their marriage laws, some opponents of the same sex marriage ban say the debate may be all but over.

“We may not have killed this thing completely,” said Jason Burle of Indianapolis, who came with his lesbian sister to the Statehouse to hold up signs during the debate. “But pushing it off another couple years means it’s essentially dead. And getting the second sentence out is a huge thing to us.”

Still, Andrew Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana-Purdue at Fort Wayne, said Republican leaders will likely face “drastic pressure” to consider the measure again next year.

An opponent of a constitutional amendment defining marriage held up a bible and a sign outside the Indiana Senate chamber on Monday. Photo by Lesley Weidenbener, TheStatehouseFile.com

An opponent of a constitutional amendment defining marriage held up a bible and a sign outside the Indiana Senate chamber on Monday. Photo by Lesley Weidenbener, TheStatehouseFile.com

The Senate voted 32-17, with Democrats making up most of the opposition. A few Republicans voted no, some because they were so disappointed in the decision – made in the Indiana House – to remove the civil unions ban.

Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, said the proposal now does little – if anything – to legally protect traditional marriage. That led him to vote no.

“If we can’t get the marriage amendment to the people now, I’m not convinced we ever will,” Delph said. “And we need to bring this issue to closure.”

Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, told his colleagues that the resolution “is not strong enough” to protect marriage in the courts. But, he voted for it, saying that “at the end of the day, I just cannot bring myself to vote against some semblance of language within our constitution that states that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

The Indiana Senate voted 32-17 to pass a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The amendment must pass again in 2015 or 2016 to go on the ballot for ratification. Photo by Lesley Weidenbener, TheStatehosueFile.com

The Indiana Senate voted 32-17 to pass a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The amendment must pass again in 2015 or 2016 to go on the ballot for ratification. Photo by Lesley Weidenbener, TheStatehosueFile.com

Outside the chamber, opponents of the marriage amendment cheered Democrats who spoke against the measure. And after the vote, they declared victory, even as they acknowledged there could still be a fight ahead.

Downs said a strong campaign against the amendment and the “everyday conversations” that lawmakers had with Hoosiers played a significant role in lawmakers’ decisions to dilute the amendment.

“Almost every legislator that changed their vote said there was a conversation that helped to change their mind,” Downs said.

In 2011, the General Assembly approved the amendment with the ban on both same-sex marriages and civil unions. If the identical language had passed this year, the measure would have gone on the ballot for ratification by voters this year.

Instead, the amendment process now begins again.

“We can finally breathe a collective sigh of relief that lawmakers are finished with the amendment this session and it will not appear on the ballot this November,” said Megan Robertson, campaign manager for Freedom Indiana, a coalition of businesses and organizations that opposed the constitutional amendment.

“We are grateful that the deeply flawed second se

Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, compared the same sex marriage debate to questions decades ago about laws banning interracial marriages. Photo by Lesley Weidenbener, TheStatehouseFile.com

Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, compared the same sex marriage debate to questions decades ago about laws banning interracial marriages. Photo by Lesley Weidenbener, TheStatehouseFile.com

ntence was removed by the House and kept out by the Senate,” Robertson said. “And we encourage Hoosiers to thank those lawmakers who showed the courage this session to make sure Indiana didn’t wind up on the wrong side of history.”

A number of lawmakers invoked history as they debated the amendment Monday. Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, compared the same-sex marriage issue to civil rights battles involving race. Taylor, a black man, said his marriage to a white woman would have been illegal decades ago. He said the younger generation will soon look at the same-sex marriage debate the way lawmakers are looking back now at laws against interracial couples.

“How would you have felt if we were arguing that point today?” Taylor said. “That’s what these kids are going to have to argue if we put this in our constitution. It’s not fair to them.”

And Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, said the amendment will come under fire in the courts regardless.

“We could put this in our state constitution 25 times in bold black capital letters and it will do nothing to preserve it from an attack in federal courts because it violates the United States Constitution equal protection clause,” Lanane said.

But Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville, said he felt an “obligation” to vote for the amendment.

“It’s a moral issue. It is for me,” Tomes said. “Am I so wrong to let that guide me? I think not. I’m going to answer to the supreme legislator. We all are one of these days.”

John Sittler is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

25 COMMENTS

  1. Now the state will waste a ton of money defending this trash in court only for it to be thrown out. Thanks a lot fiscal conservatives. I’d like to thank Vaneta Becker for using some common sense.

    • Absolutely, thanks to Vaneta Becker!
      It does seem ironic that so many of our “fiscal conservatives” are all for keeping hungry kids from eating because “we can’t afford it”, but they’re able to pay the freight to codify their hate.

      • LKB: Please show us some factual information as to “fiscal conservatives” actually saying this, or proposing it or implementing it. As usual your meds are causing you to run off at the mouth and spout factless BS.

        • They may not say it but their actions speak louder than words. So if we provide you this information you’ll promise to vote straight D in 2014 and 2016?

  2. Why do our GOP legislators seem hell bent to embarrass our state, waste our tax money, and continue to trample individuals rights?

    • The majority of states have found it necessary to constitutionally define marriage.

      No individual’s rights are being trampled. You will have an opportunity to vote against the amendment just like the majority who will vote for it.

  3. I begins to look like the Indiana Republican Party, the irked IRP, is driven strictly by social issues. They appear to care not how much of your tax money they’ll spend defending their illegal discriminatory actions and plain evil wrongheadedness.

  4. ….

    This p.o.s. should resign. We are not electing preachers. Why did you run for Congress? We’re electing representatives for our Constitutional government.

    Small-minded bigots have proven time and time again they cannot endure the march of civilization. Those that want to ban same-sex marriage…take heart…you’re going to your death w/ no legacy to succeed you.

    • …clarifying: Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville who says, “It’s a moral issue. It is for me,” Tomes said. “Am I so wrong to let that guide me? I think not. I’m going to answer to the supreme legislator. We all are one of these days.”

        • Religion running government policy is anti American. Send these tealiban morons to Iran. They would fit right in.

          • Indiana constitution article 1 section 3.

            “No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.”

    • Actually, without heterosexuals it will be homosexuality that would not survive. your awfully dramatic, but I think all of us will be fine.

      What’s going to happen is that homosexual activist will push on to suing business and church and you will see a push back like we saw with Chic-fil-A and Hobby Lobby. You are also going o see an increase of states essentially legalizing discrimination to protect businesses and religious organizations from these suits.

  5. One of the final speakers yesterday in favor of an amendment barring gay marriage said he wanted to be able to stand before God and say he ‘took to the mike in the Indiana Senate’… (presumably to uphold his warped view of what he was elected to do). Well, he took to the mike, for Mike, and was ignored by his chambermates. Darwin will soon tap that slob on his shoulder. Delph and his crew did everything but bring their snakes with them.

  7. The amendment will go to referendum, it will pass, and the courts will decide if it is constitutional. most likely it will stand scrutiny like the majority of other states that have defined marriage. States have that right. If it does not, Delph’s comments will be part of the reason it failed. Despite the ire of the Christo-phobes, he has every right to express his rebellious views even on the state house floor, but he can not single out a group. His tweeter rant hurts more than it helps. You can bet an ACLU lawyer has cataloged his comments.

    However, I expect a challenge to our statutory marriage laws before that happens which will lend to an uptick in CCO hits.

Comments are closed.