ILNews

House committee ends hearing without vote on marriage amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After more than three hours of testimony, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee recessed Monday without taking a vote on the constitutional marriage amendment and accompanying bill.

Committee chairman Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, ended the hearing by announcing the members would not be voting so they could weigh the testimony they had heard.

Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, introduced HJR 3, the marriage amendment which bans same-sex unions, and his companion legislation, House Bill 1153, which serves to explain the Legislature’s intent primarily behind the controversial second sentence of the proposed constitutional provision.

The House Chamber and gallery were filled to capacity for the meeting with a large crowd gathered standing outside in the Statehouse hallway. Many of the opponents of the amendment and bill wore red shirts and blue stickers printed with the logo for Freedom Indiana, an organization working to defeat the amendment.

Executives from Cummins Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and Indiana University spoke in opposition of the amendment and bill. They and others against the proposals emphasized the measures would hurt the state’s efforts to compete in the global market and recruit top talent to Indiana.

They also framed the debate as being about a civil rights issue, asserting the amendment discriminated against a particular segment of society.  

Supporters of the measure included outside groups Alliance Defending Freedom and Heritage Foundation as well as Indiana organizations of Advance America and the Indiana Family Institute.

They emphasized the state had an interest in defining marriage as between one man and one woman because this creates the most stable environment in which to raise children. In addition, they argued that businesses would not be harmed and that domestic partner benefits would not be endangered by the amendment.

Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee were active in questioning Turner and supporters of the amendment. Republican members did not pose any questions to any of the participants.

If the proposed amendment is passed by both the Indiana House and Senate this session, the measure will appear on the November ballot.

Opponents urged the Judiciary Committee to vote against the proposal, saying the debate alone would harm Indiana. Supporters framed the debate as part of the democratic process, saying the Legislature and residents should have the right to define marriage instead of the courts.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT