ILNews

Same-sex marriage amendment passes Senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The resolution seeking to ban same-sex marriage in the Indiana Constitution passed the Senate Monday, meaning the soonest voters may have a say in the matter is 2016.

Senators voted 32-17 to pass House Joint Resolution 3, the resolution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Initially, the resolution included another sentence: “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

This sentence raised concerns for some regarding the potential impact on heterosexual couples and was taken out by the House of Representatives before moving the resolution to the Senate. Senators declined to put that sentence back in the amendment. Because the language in HJR3 approved by both houses differs from the language previously approved, this new version will need to be approved by the Indiana General Assembly in 2015 or 2016 before voters could get a chance to weigh in.

The decision to not reinsert the second sentence in HRJ3 led Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, to call a press conference where he chastised Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne. Delp said he wanted the measure to go back to second reading, and he voted against approving HJR3 Monday. The press conference came after Delph took to Twitter last week where he responded to critics and called out certain churches for not supporting the resolution.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT