About Us | Events | Businesses | Nightlife | Organizations | Calendar | HIV Testing | eList |
GET INVOLVED!Local Blogs advance indiana |
The Marriage Discrimination AmendmentA Brief HistoryIn February of 2004, a bill to amend the Indiana State Constitution to ban same-sex-marriage, authored by State Senator Brandt Hershman (R-Wheatfield), passed the Republican controlled Indiana State Senate with bipartisan support. The bill, Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR 7), also includes language ("Part B") stating that "the legal incidents of marriage" (a phrase that has not been legally defined) may not be conferred upon unmarried couples. The Proposed Marriage Discrimination Amendment (SJR 007)ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA IS AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Section 38. (a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. In the Democratically controlled House of Representatives, Speaker B. Patrick Bauer (D-South Bend), felt that current Indiana law defining marriage was sufficient, and that the legislature had more pressing issues to deal with. Over the vehement objections of House Republican leadership, Bauer refused to hear the bill on the House floor and it died in committee. Lead by a furious House Minority Leader Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis), the House Republicans staged a walkout that shut down the state legislature. The walkout further galvanized the far right, and was widely covered by both the local and national media. The boycott soon ended, and Bosma and the Republicans returned to the legislature acknowledging defeat but vowing to revive the issue. In the election of 2004, the Republicans gained control of the Indiana House of Representatives. In February 2005, SJR 7 was re-introduced in the Senate, including the "legal incidents of marriage " language, where it passed easily. It was then sent to the House, where, lead by a vengeful Brian Bosma (now Speaker of the House), it became a top priority and was approved by a vote of 76-23. Presumably to take the issue off the table as a "wedge issue," Minority Leader Bauer pledged during the 2006 mid-term election campaign to allow the amendment to come up for a vote if the Democrats were to re-gain the majority. The Democrats did, in fact, regain the control of the House of Representatives by a slim 51-49 margin. As expected the, amendment was re-introduced in 2007 and easily passed the Senate, where it then moved on to the House and found a more difficult road. Lead by Indiana Equality and others, "Part B" of the amendment came under intense scrutiny, and mainstream opposition began to grow. The amendment was assigned to the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee, where public testimony was offered by Cummins, Inc. and WellPoint, two large Indiana employers, who objected to the amendment claiming that it hurt their ability to attract and retain employees. The measure was not voted on by the committee after the public hearing. The week after the hearing, a letter from Eli Lilly and Co. expressed the same sentiments, calling for the amendment to be rejected. Emmis Broadcasting Chairman Jeff Smulyan also sent a letter to the House Speaker also asking for the amendment to be rejected. When the committee re-convened on April 3, 2007, it voted 5-5, thus the measure failed since it did not have a majority of committee votes. What's Next?
To amend the Constitution of the State of Indiana, a proposed amendment must pass two consecutive General Assembly sessions, and then it must be put to the voters in the next general election.
While the unprecedented victory in April 2007 is worth celebrating, the Christian Right, lead by Advance America's Eric Miller, will most certainly be placing intense pressure on the legislature to re-introduce the amendment in the 2008 session in order to place it on the ballot as a referendum in the 2008 election. It is imperative that the community remain engaged and focused in order to continue to protect our families from this attack. |
What is this thing anyway?
Information about the proposed Constitutional Amendment along with the wording of the amendment in it's entirety.
Some Ramifications
The Indiana Action Network discusses some of the unintended consequences and dangers of the amendment to unmarried couples both gay and straight.
Refuting Their Arguments (PDF)
Do you occasionally get stumped when trying to answer the arguments of our opponents? This is a direct download link to a PDF document by Jeremy Townsley that thoroughly and factually addresses the pro-amendment arguments. A must read!
What Can I do?
Steps you can take to fight back this unwarranted attack! For more information, please visit Indiana Equality |