ILNews

Rep. Turner introduces resolution defining marriage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT