Indianapolis - In a ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals, a three judge panel said the state's ban prohibiting gay marriage also applies to same-sex domestic partnerships. As a result, this will cause thousands of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) residents employed by public institutions to lose health insurance and other important benefits.

The Court's ruling troubled Indiana opponents of Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR-7), or the Marriage Discrimination Amendment. If ratified, the broad language of the amendment permanently ensures that all unmarried couples or groups, regardless of gender, would be banned from seeking legal status that is "substantially similar" to marriage. Opponents, who participated in a widely-attended Senate hearing last week, have long expressed their concerns about the vague nature of the amendment's language.

"Michigan's amendment uses very clear language in defining marriage," said Jon Keep, President of Indiana Equality. "Despite that clarity, it has been widely interpreted by the courts. If SJR-7 continues to move forward, thousands of unmarried Hoosier couples and their families could lose not just domestic partner benefits, but become extremely vulnerable to future discrimination."

Michigan's amendment has resulted in the loss of domestic partner benefits for thousands of LGBT employees and their families in the public sector. Under SJR-7, all unmarried couples and families working for public universities, for Indiana state government, or for other municipalities would likely lose these benefits.

Ohio's amendment has had unexpected repercussions. Several trial courts have ruled that the state's amendment made it unconstitutional to pursue domestic violence charges against unmarried people, regardless of their gender. The implications for Hoosier victims of domestic violence are staggering. Recent statistics indicate that 46.5 percent of all domestic violence perpetrators in Indiana were a woman's live-in friend or boyfriend. If SJR-7 is ratified, domestic violence victims and their families could stand helpless at the hands of their batterers.

"We've seen in neighboring states the negative impact amendments of this nature can have for all unmarried couples," Keep said. "Simply put, the Marriage Discrimination Amendment violates every Hoosier's basic right to fairness and equality."

Public opposition to SJR-7 continues to grow, including illuminating coverage in the major media of Indiana. On February 1, 2007, The Indianapolis Star main editorial points out "there are many good reasons for legislators to either amend or vote down SJR 7, preferably the latter. State law already prohibits same-sex marriage, and Indiana lawmakers have more immediate issues to address, such as property tax relief, school financing, full-day kindergarten, and expanding health care for low-income Hoosiers. The very uncertainty about how the amendment would affect protection for victims of domestic violence is a key reason why it should not be approved."

 Indiana Equality Website