Proponents said the amendment was needed to protect the sanctity of traditional
marriage from lawsuits and activist judges. Some opponents argued that it was
simply discriminatory, but others said a provision could have unintended
consequences on laws and policies that affect all unmarried couples.
The General Assembly two years ago overwhelmingly approved a resolution on the
amendment. It still must pass this session or the next without any changes and
then be approved in a statewide vote in the 2008 general election before it
could become official.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-4 along party lines to move the proposed
amendment to the full Senate, with all seven Republicans voting for it and all
four Democrats against. After two attempts to amend the resolution failed,
several people in the gallery stood and sang in protest.
They began singing softly at first, but got louder as a senator spoke in favor
of the amendment before the committee vote.
Republican Sen. Richard Bray of Martinsville, the committee chairman, said
demonstrations were out of order, and after slapping a gavel on the Senate
podium a few times, the protesters were escorted out of the gallery. They
continued singing for a short while in the hall and some prayed.
A few boos rang out from the floor as the Republicans announced their yes
votes.
The amendment has two sections, the first saying that marriage in Indiana is
solely the union of one man and one woman. The second says that the state
constitution or state law cannot be construed to provide the benefits of
marriage on unmarried couples or groups.
Opponent said the second provision was vague and could be used to nullify
domestic violence laws that apply to married and unmarried couples, as well as
contracts that unmarried senior couples sometimes have to retain inheritances
and share legal, financial and health care decisions.
Walter Botich, president of a group called Stop the Amendment, said the second
section would not only place restrictions on same-sex couples but those who are
single.
''Nowhere in the second line does it say anything about same-sex couples,'' he
said. ''It says unmarried couples. We're talking about anyone who isn't
married.''
Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, legal counsel for the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, said the section would make Indiana's domestic battery laws
unconstitutional because they currently cover spouses and those who are
unmarried but considered ''live-in spouses.''
The Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether its gay marriage amendment
conflicts with that state's domestic battery laws. The case stems from a
judge's decision to dismiss a domestic violence charge against a man who argued
that it conflicted with the amendment. The charge was later reinstated by an
appeals court and the man appealed to the state's highest court.
Attorney James Bopp told the Indiana Senate committee that Ohio's provision is
significantly different from Indiana's proposed amendment.
He said the Ohio amendment barred the Ohio Legislature from applying benefits
of marriage on unmarried couples, but Indiana's proposed amendment would only
prohibit a court from ordering that unmarried couples receive marriage-like
benefits. The General Assembly could still pass laws giving such benefits to
unmarried couples, as it has done in the past, he said.
Some opponents, including Eric Kanagy of Goshen, said he moved to Indianan from
Pennsylvania, started a successful business and called Indiana home - only to
have the state try to turn its back on him because he is gay.
''Passing this resolution is the same as installing signs at the borders of
this state saying right below 'Buckle your seat belts, gays stay out,'' he
said.
But several proponents said marriage was a bedrock of society that should be
protected.
''There are those who want to make marriage virtually meaningless,'' said Micah
Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana.
