ILNews

Rep. Turner introduces resolution defining marriage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, filed House Joint Resolution 3 Thursday, which looks to ban same-sex marriage in Indiana through the state Constitution. He also introduced a bill describing the legislative intent of offering the amendment.

The resolution would amend Article 1 of the Constitution, adding Section 38 that says only marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in Indiana. It also says “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

This proposed amendment to the Constitution must be agreed to by two consecutive General Assemblies and ratified by a majority of the state’s voters to become effective. It was approved by the previous General Assembly.

House Bill 1153 would add a new chapter to Indiana Code regarding the marriage amendment. The legislation says the intent is to restrict the state from creating or recognizing a legal status “between unmarried individuals equivalent or substantially similar to marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman.” It goes on to outline what the legislators do not want the amendment to restrict, including the extension of employment benefits to any beneficiary designated by an employed individual and protections provided under the state’s domestic violence laws.

The bill comes amid concerns that the language of the proposed constitutional amendment would not be limited to gay and lesbian couples and would negatively impact heterosexual couples who were not married.
 

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. Frankly, it is tragic that you are even considering going to an expensive, unaccredited "law school." It is extremely difficult to get a job with a degree from a real school. If you are going to make the investment of time, money, and tears into law school, it should not be to a place that won't actually enable you to practice law when you graduate.

  2. As a lawyer who grew up in Fort Wayne (but went to a real law school), it is not that hard to find a mentor in the legal community without your school's assistance. One does not need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go to an unaccredited legal diploma mill to get a mentor. Having a mentor means precisely nothing if you cannot get a job upon graduation, and considering that the legal job market is utterly terrible, these students from Indiana Tech are going to be adrift after graduation.

  3. 700,000 to 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession each year in the US. Do we need a new justice center if we decriminalize marijuana by having the City Council enact a $100 fine for marijuana possession and have the money go towards road repair?

  4. I am sorry to hear this.

  5. I tried a case in Judge Barker's court many years ago and I recall it vividly as a highlight of my career. I don't get in federal court very often but found myself back there again last Summer. We had both aged a bit but I must say she was just as I had remembered her. Authoritative, organized and yes, human ...with a good sense of humor. I also appreciated that even though we were dealing with difficult criminal cases, she treated my clients with dignity and understanding. My clients certainly respected her. Thanks for this nice article. Congratulations to Judge Barker for reaching another milestone in a remarkable career.

ADVERTISEMENT