INDIANAPOLIS - For the past several years, Republicans in the Indiana General Assembly have pushed for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state.
The difference this year is that, with a new GOP majority in the House of Representatives, the measure has a much better chance of passing.
Indiana has had a state law banning same-sex marriage since 1986, but some say a constitutional amendment is needed to guard the law against the possibility of a court decision overturning it.
Rep. Eric Turner, a Marion Republican who is sponsoring House Joint Resolution 6, told the House Judiciary Committee on Monday that families are the basic unit of society, and that unit is based on marriage between one man and one woman.
Opponents of the resolution say it would tarnish Indiana’s image and make Hoosiers appear as if they don’t welcome diversity. They also fear a constitutional amendment could endanger other benefits, such as health care and hospital visitation rights, that same-sex couples share.
The committee voted 8-4 along party lines Monday to forward the resolution to the full House. If the General Assembly approves the resolution this year and next year, it will be placed on the ballot for a statewide vote over whether the ban should be added to the constitution.
Seven people spoke in favor of the resolution Monday, and another seven people spoke against it during the two-hour committee hearing.
Cynthia Conley, an assistant professor at Ball State University, said the resolution “would set a path for discrimination to be written into our constitution.”
Jim Bopp, a lawyer from Terre Haute, said fears about the amendment affecting domestic violence laws and endangering shared benefits are unfounded.
And people on both sides of the debate cast the issue as being driven by a small minority.
Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, said “2 percent of the population does not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of the state’s entire population.”
Indianapolis resident Patrick Roth told the committee, “What you’re considering here is pandering to a very small, very vocal part of our community, and you would be doing it at the expense of an entire other group in the very same community.”
Rep. Dave Cheatham, a Democrat from North Vernon and co-sponsor of the resolution, showed that the issue is not purely partisan.
“We have laws that deal with situations; we have a constitution that deals with foundational, fundamental issues,” Cheatham said. “This is a foundational, fundamental issue - marriage between one man and one woman. That’s why it needs to be in the state constitution.”
Rep. Gail Riecken, D-Evansville, disagreed.
“The fundamental issue to me is freedom,” Riecken said, “freedom to be who you are, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.”
Staff writer Kevin Allen:
kallen@sbtinfo.com
574-235-6244
Panel OKs gay marriage ban
Votes 8-4 to forward resolution to full House.
-
-
-
Comments24
-
-
-
24
« Previous Story More WSBT: Local, National and World News Next Story »
Comments (24)
Add / View comments | Discussion FAQFunny how big government regulation is such a bad thing when your talking about a corporation, like say Massey Energy that was responsible for numerous fatalities and injuries (specifically the mining industry) (the most recent being with 29 last count miners), yet perfectly okay to regulate who can get married. Wow what a huge glaring contradiction! People are without jobs or unemployment compensation, the economy is in the tank but this is top priority. What brilliant logic. This is a prime example of people bringing their religious belief into legislation and imposing it on others and a BIG SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE VIOLATION. You claim to be a supporter of the constitution yet you subvert it at almost every turn. I can only say one thing - When the tides turn don't get mad when it get done to you! What goes around comes around. Talk about not seeing past the end of your nose. Legislation is to be created to benefit or protect the general populace, not specific beliefs or interests. Yet you can't seem to cite one single way that by allow to people of the same sex that impeeds or imposes on your life. Theres that LACK OF LOGIC AGAIN!
Can anyone use a valid reason why we need a ban on gay marriage apart from religion? Especially when we take into consideration that we have much bigger problems on our hands such as a lack of jobs and lack of funding for our schools? This is exactly why we need and have a separation of church and state.
The state has already made same sex marriage illegal. These politicians do not have the authority to ammend our constitution to suit their personal beliefs just because they are fearful that justice may prevail at some point and overturn the state ban. Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees equal rights and protection to all citizens. If we say that same sex couples do not legally have the right to marry, are we saying they are any less citizens; any less human? At one time in this country blacks were not allowed to marry. And it wasn't until 1967 that interracial marriage was legal in all states. Now we look back at those parts of our history and ask why we ever thought that was ok.
A right delayed is a right denied-Martin Luther King, Jr