TheStatehouseFile.com
FRANKLIN, Ind. – The president of an Indiana family institution said Monday that the decision over the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage should be left up to the residents of Indiana.
Randall Shepard, former chief justice in the Indiana Supreme Court, was the moderator for the debate. Photo by Emily Metheny, TheStatehouseFile.com.
But Jane Henegar, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said it’s not right for Hoosiers to put the rights of their neighbors up to a vote.
The discussion was part of a debate hosted Monday night at Franklin College that featured Henegar and Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute.
Both echoed many of the sentiments heard on the House floor Monday, while also adding some of their own opinions.
Henegar opened the discussion by saying passage of the amendment would be a “permanent stain†on the state constitution. She would come back to this phrase often throughout the night, as she urged the General Assembly not to pass House Joint Resolution 3.
Curt Smith, President of the Indiana Family Institute, argued that children do best when raised with both a mother and father. Photo by Emily Metheny, TheStatehouseFile.com
Smith lobbied in favor of the amendment – and it’s accompanying House Bill 1153. He said it’s time to let Hoosiers decide the “role marriage should play in our state’s great life.â€
“I trust Hoosiers,†he said.
But Henegar said it would be “foolhardy and harmful†to pass legislation she said is very unclear. She echoed many House Democrats who have said it is unnecessary to pass a 73-line bill to explain a 16-line amendment.
She said this demonstrates HJR 3 does not contain language that should be put into the state’s constitution. And she said she is not alone in this belief.
“The majority of Hoosiers agree this is not the way we should deal with same-sex marriage,†Henegar said.
The two speakers also addressed how same-sex couples – and parents – affect children in Indiana.
Jane Henegar, executive director for American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said the admendment was “a stain on the constitution.†Photo by Emily Metheny, TheStatehouseFile.com.
Smith said families are the “frontline†and it’s “undebatable†that children do best when raised by both their mother and their father. He said he wants to “elevate and lift up†all Hoosier children, and that he wants to also “reinforce and expand†the culture of marriage in Indiana.
He then asked what he called a “tough†question.
“What does a same-sex couple say to that child when they come and say ‘Where’s my mommy?’ or ‘Where’s my daddy?’,†Smith said.
Henegar said that the parents would respond the same way a heterosexual couple would answer the questions of an adopted child.
The debate concluded with both parties thanking Franklin College for the opportunity, and urging voters and legislators alike to think carefully about their decisions.
Passing this amendment would be, “the same as hanging an unwelcome sign on the front door of our state,†Henegar said.
Franklin College students were some of the people in attendance during the debate Monday night. Photo by Emily Metheny, TheStatehouseFile.com.
John Sittler is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.
So do children do poorly when raised by two men, two women, or a single parent? That is the wrong line of argument and could actually work against the amendment because this issue is rightfully held to a higher level of scrutiny.
The only line of argument is if it is constitutional for Indiana to vote on a constitutional amendment. It is constitutional. The ACLU lawyer is wrong in that every law and every vote draws moral line and someone is going to feel cheated.
This issue is going to be decided either by amendment or ruling. If it is by a court ruling, then more than half of Indiana voters are going to feel disenfranchised. Bring the amendment to a vote, then let the court decide its constitutionality.
In fact, the direction of Constitutionally protected same-sex marriage has already been decided by a SCOTUS ruling. Most enlightened States are smart enough to go ahead and stop wasting tax payer dollars and have already changed their laws. Cleaning up Indiana State law to eventually close the lid on this is….a matter of time and NOTHING else.
As such, Indiana Republicans are throwing away State dollars and legislative time by bantering about on this issue.
The thing is THIS: Indiana has no right to pass amendments denying interracial marriage. It has been ruled unconstitutional. Same for inter-faith marriages. VOTING on such matters has no validity.
Same is true for same-sex marriage…in short time, albeit much to the chagrin of the Tea Party Westboro Baptist style extremist Christians.
This ball is rolling down the hill. Same-sex marriage IS coming to Indiana as a US Constitutionally protected right whether or not an IN amendment passes.
I really do care what some putz who called me a bigot on the order Fred Phelps thinks or has to say. You’re not up to reasonable exchanges or different opinions.
Comments are closed.