ILNews

Senate gets resolution on marriage, civil unions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Senate Judiciary Committee spent most of its time this week discussing the definition of marriage in Indiana and whether a constitutional amendment should be sent to voters to make it tougher for courts and legislators to rewrite how they handle both gay marriage and civil unions.

Committee members heard about two hours of testimony Wednesday in the Senate chambers before passing Senate Joint Resolution 13 by a 6-4 vote along party lines. It now moves to the full Senate for consideration.

Authored by Sen. Carlin Yoder, R-Indianapolis, SJR 13 would create a constitutional definition of marriage being between a man and woman. It also would say that "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals" wouldn't be recognized legally. A similar marriage amendment failed to pass the last legislative session and as a result never went before the voters.

The language in this Senate resolution mirrors what's proposed in House Joint Resolution 5, which was introduced by Rep. Bill Davis, R-Portland, and remains in the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedures.

At the recent committee meeting, lawmakers heard heated testimony from both sides and delved into a myriad of topics such as equal protection and discrimination, business competition, and religious practice as it applies to everyone in the state.

Yoder told his colleagues that this measure is more strictly focused on civil unions than it was in the past and is specifically aimed at stopping what some describe as "counterfeit marriages" between the same-sex couples. The constitutional amendment is needed now because of legal challenges that have materialized in other states, and Indiana should take the step that 30 other states have done, he said.

Supporters said it would have no effect on domestic-violence laws or domestic-partner benefits, as well as no influence on contractual arrangements or adoptions. This puts into the constitution what's already been in place in Indiana for more than two decades: the Marriage Defense Act, or Indiana Code 31-11-1-1. And by amending the constitution, it would stop any challenges that could be interpreted differently by the Indiana judiciary, or any action legislators could take in repealing or revising that state statute.

"Homosexuals can still marry ... they just have to marry someone of a different sex," said Terre Haute attorney James Bopp, who is involved in several high-profile anti-gay-rights cases including the California one involving Proposition 8. "We shouldn't wait for that fanciful case that's going on in California. We should take the step to protect (marriage) against our state courts from seizing control of this issue against the will of the people."

But J.T. Forbes, state government relations director for Cummins, said the business world disagrees about the possible impact and doesn't support the resolution.

"We embrace diverse perspectives ... but this sends the message that Indiana doesn't welcome people of all backgrounds, and it can be perceived as intolerant of diversity," he said, adding that 87 percent of companies ban sexual-orientation discrimination and 67 percent offer domestic-partner benefits in some fashion. "We worry that this amendment would force us to scrap those benefits and send the message that discrimination based on sexual orientation is OK."

More than a dozen people testified at the hearing, including American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana Executive Director Gil Holmes in opposition, attorneys with varying viewpoints, a Kentucky lawmaker who'd been a part of that jurisdiction's adoption of a similar amendment, and priests and parents on both sides of the issue.

Voting for the bill: Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville; Sen. Joe Zakas, R-Granger; Sen. Randy Head, R-Logansport; Sen.Travis Holdman, R-Markle; Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis; and Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford.

Sens. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis; Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago; Tim Lanane, D-Anderson; and John Broden, D-South Bend voted against the measure. Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette didn't vote.

Explaining their votes, Randolph indicated he'd changed his vote based on the testimony he heard, and Lanane said he was specifically against it because of the civil-union impact and the economic impact this could have. Taylor said he felt this measure is discriminatory and ties the hands of future generations.

"Who am I to decide what makes everyone else happy?" Randolph said, noting that he supports a marriage between one man and woman. "I can see the underlying effects of what this could mean, and I can't interject my personal feelings and thoughts onto how you feel."

If SJR 13 passes the Senate and House this session, it would still need to be approved during the 2011 session before it could be put on the ballot for voters to decide.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT