Send to Printer
In 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.
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.
If the measure passes without modifications, it will then go to the voters in a referendum in the November 2008 general election. If it is amended even slightly, it must go through yet another election cycle, and the earliest it could go to the voters would be 2010.*
Of course, no one can predict the future with absolute certainty, so this is a matter of some speculation. Nearly all political watchers agree that the Indiana Senate will remain Republican controlled for the foreseeable future, so it seems unlikely that the proposed amendment will face any stumbling blocks in the Senate in 2007.
Should the Democrats regain control of the House in the 2006 election, it is uncertain (and many believe unlikely) that the amendment will be killed in similar fashion as in 2004. Most agree, however, that in a Democratically controlled House there is significant hope that the measure would be amended, in particular the legally untested language in the infamous "Part B." This would then require the General Assembly to consider it once again in 2009, with the earliest possible referendum being in 2010.
If the House of Representatives remains in Republican control after the election of 2006, it seems highly unlikely that the proposed amendment will fail or be amended, thus there is general agreement that there will be little chance of avoiding a 2008 referendum should the Republicans retain control of the House.
* This would be the case if it was amended in 2007 or 2008. It is possible that the bill could be amended in 2006 by the current General Assembly and still make it to the 2008 ballot as a referendum, although at the time of this writing this is not considered to be a likely scenario.