A Republican and Democrat State Representative will stand together today in the Indiana State house and introduce a bill that would change the state constitution so that it defines marriage as between a man and a woman, a further sign that the battle over gay marriage is spreading to even the flattest, most uninteresting parts of the country.
In a prepared press release, the Alliance Defense Fund, a supporter of the bill, writes:
“Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks will participate in a press conference Monday when Indiana legislators will announce introduction of a proposed amendment to the state constitution that will protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Nimocks will speak and be available to answer questions from the media.
“Judges and politicians should never impose a system that knowingly deprives a child of a mom and a dad. A constitutional amendment is the best way to ensure marriage is protected from activism, as has been demonstrated in the 30 other states that have adopted one,” said Nimocks.”
It’s already illegal for gays and lesbians to marry in Indiana, but out of fear that the Supreme Court might rule that the current ban is unconstitutional, the legislators are hoping to change the Constitution itself.
28 states have constitutional amendments which ban gay marriage, most of them passed shortly after the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which,on the federal level, defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Adding Indiana to the list is obviously something that should be fought, but more and more, these decisions to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution seem like acts of desperation against a turning tide.
The Gay Numbers
Well, it has no chance of passing because it has a 90 percent population, and we all know that any such measure only passes where there is a small number of whites and a high number of blacks. Snark.
Ben
i live in indiana….
Nick
*sigh*
As a resident of Indiana, I apologize profusely to the Queerty community for the douchebags in our Senate. I’ve always considered our legislature to be one of the worst in the country, and I am (not) happy to see that the Senators own it.
I really do not think this is going anywhere, unless they try to attach it to another bill.
I can’t seem to find the names of the Senator’s though. There isn’t a story on the Indy Star yet. I’ll be intrigued to see which career politician it is.
Japhy Grant
@Ben: No disrespect intended! ‘Flat and uninteresting’ was meant as a characterization of the land, not its people.
Japhy Grant
@Nick: Sorry- we forgot to add the link. The reps are P. Eric Turner (R-Marion) and Dave Cheatham (D-North Vernon).
Leland Frances
I’m sorry to be the one to keep carping at you, really I am, but you wrote this as if this was a first in Indiana: “the battle over gay marriage is spreading.” In fact, similar attempts in Indiana go back at least four years. Background and forecast from a December 1st “Indianapolis Star” article:
“State legislators unlikely to tackle same-sex marriage amendment in 2009
By Bill Ruthhart
[email protected]
Though the number of states adopting bans on same-sex marriage grows, the odds appear slim that Indiana lawmakers will give serious consideration to such a constitutional amendment next year.
It’s not because social conservatives won’t push for it again.
But after the effort died twice, the long and complicated process of amending the constitution would have to start all over again, and no one in the Statehouse seems prepared to go to the ramparts.
Even the Republican lawmaker who has pushed the measure in the past says he doesn’t plan to do so in the 2009 session.
“I think the issue is still relevant in that it continues to be debated in a variety of states and continues to be heard by a variety of courts,” said state Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield.
“However, if action is to be taken this time, it would be my intent to see it start in the House, because that’s been the holdup in the past, and until that legislative entanglement is resolved, there’s not much to be achieved through the Senate yet again.”
The Indiana Senate, controlled by Republicans, has voted three times to pass the amendment. The House, however, is controlled by Democrats, and Speaker B. Patrick Bauer has not shown a willingness to allow a floor vote on the issue.
Bauer, D-South Bend, has said he thinks Indiana’s law prohibiting same-sex marriages is enough.
“I’ve been asking people to show me that the current law has been broken, and they haven’t showed me yet. I want to see the couples that were illegally married,” he said earlier this year when asked about the prospects of a constitutional amendment.
Conservatives aren’t deterred.
“We’re not going to give up just because Speaker Pat Bauer has blocked it in the past,” said Eric Miller, founder of the conservative activist group Advance America, which has pushed for the amendment’s passage.
“It’s right to protect marriage between a man and a woman, and it’s right for the people of Indiana to have a chance to vote on this.”
Walter Botich, legislative chairman of Indiana Equality and one of the leading opponents of the amendment, said lawmakers have more pressing issues they should focus on during the 2009 session.
“I would think there are several other things that would be on my agenda as a legislator that I would want to deal with before I started down this path of issues that people, quite frankly, have lost interest in,” Botich said.
“We’ve got an economy that is not doing well, we’ve got people who are losing jobs, and yet some people want to harp on these same issues that are pulling people apart at a time we should be coming together to solve these big problems.”
Though marriage under Indiana law is defined as the union between a man and a woman, proponents of the amendment say they want to protect their position in the state constitution to prevent judges from misinterpreting the law or overruling it.
Opponents contend not only that current law is sufficient but that an amendment would constitutionally shield a form of discrimination.
Nationwide, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. Arizona, California and Florida approved their measures in November.
Rep. P. Eric Turner, R-Marion, said that as other states continue to add amendments, Indiana becomes more of an “anomaly.”
“Certainly there are those, including the speaker, who say we have a law, and I understand that rationale,” he said. “But we also have judges who sometimes interpret the law differently than we intended, thus the need for a constitutional amendment.”
Turner, Miller and others have pushed for a floor vote in the House, believing the amendment would pass there. They have good reason to. In 2005, the House overwhelmingly passed the measure, 76-23.
In the past two legislative sessions, however, the amendment hasn’t made it as far as the floor, dying instead in the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee.
During this year’s session, lawmakers tried to pressure that committee into adopting the measure by presenting a petition signed by nearly 60 House members who said they would vote for the amendment, including seven Democrats.
But the committee’s chairman, Rep. Scott Pelath, refused to hear the matter, saying at the time: “We don’t have any gay marriages. It’s already against the law in this state.”
Pelath, D-Michigan City, did not return phone calls seeking his comment on an amendment’s chances in 2009.
Turner vowed to continue to pressure Democrats.
“We’ll just have to see how it shakes out,” he said. “I’m hopeful there will be enough on both sides of the aisle to persuade the speaker and his leadership team that it’s time to move it.”
If a constitutional amendment were to pass in 2009 or 2010, it would have to be approved by the General Assembly again in 2011 or 2012 before voters would have the chance to vote on the measure in the 2012 general election.
Additional Facts
Amending the constitution
Because the same-sex marriage ban failed to pass out of the General Assembly in 2007 and again this year, the lengthy process to amend the Indiana Constitution would have to start from scratch in 2009. Democratic House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, however, has not shown a willingness to allow a floor vote.
A constitutional amendment requires passage by two separately elected legislatures, followed by the approval of voters in a general election.”
Alan down in Florida
I’m so glad that the economy is running so smoothly in Indiana that the legislators feel that they have time to work on this bill.
@ Ben & Nick – congratulations on living in a state that clearly has its priorities “straight.”
ChicagoJimmy
Actually, Kansas is the flattest state. A survey was done to prove that, yes, it is indeed flatter than a pancake. Indiana is simply proof that hell is full and the dead are walking the planet.
Robert, NYC
This only proves that there will NEVER be marriage equality in all 50 states. Where are we now, some 28 or more states with DOMA firmly in place, more than half the country. No amount of federal legislation will ever be able to get rid of state laws unless the Supreme Court steps in which currently is stacked in favor of the right wing, 5 to 4 and religion holds a lot of sway in denying equality. There are no guarantees either that even if it were stacked in favor of the Democrats, it wouldn’t mean five would support equality since there are plenty of Dems who are anti marriage equality too.
Ti
The good news is that this failed 4 years ago. What is interesting is that what killed it in Indiana was an alliance between the “country club republicans” and business in Indiana. CEOs went to the legislature to speak against this because it was bad for the business community.
Indiana is a easy target to bash. Give us some credit for having several communities with human rights ordinances (Bloomington, West Lafayette and Lafayette). And yes, I do live here and am a native and no this is not the only state I have lived in.
Flex
Pass an amendment banning christianity too. The aliance defense fund is a right-wing christian organization funded by “Focus On The Family.” Lets burn their churches down too!
Nick
@Alan down in Florida: Actually, Alan, our economy is one of the best in the Midwest, and we have a $1.6 billion surplus. So, snark aside, we ARE doing better than the rest of you. 😉
…Not that it gives them a right to try and get this passed. The fact that Rep. Brian Bosma, who has been the main instigator of this in the past appears to be no where near this bill, proves that this is a lunatic fringe, and Gov. Mitch Daniels is not going to let this go anywhere, because despite our robust fiscal health, if the auto industry continues to tank and other manufacturing jobs get lost, that surplus will be chump change.
Natasha Homa
Ignorance does not create a perfect society. Loving & respecting EVERYONE does make harmony.
Too bad Indiana is stepping back into the dark ages. I hope for my GLBT brothers & sisters in Indiana that this absolutely ABSURD notion will not pass.
STOP THE HATE & PREJUDICE!!!
Stephen
“Judges and politicians should never impose a system that knowingly deprives a child of a mom and a dad.”
This such utter bullshit! Same-sex couples either: 1. can’t have kids and won’t, so no problem there; or 2. ALREADY have kids and this measure ITSELF is what will deprive those children of the support they need. Why do these pricks hate the children so much?
Darren
It failed once before, as mentioned, and I think it’s failed to make it onto ballots twice…as far as the economy here, it certainly doesn’t seem like we’re doing well lol I’ll have some blind faith it won’t pass…but I really don’t depend on Indiana for much :\
Sandra O'Connor
it has no chance of passing because it has a 90 percent population
Where’d the other 10% go?
Brian Miller
Judges and politicians should never impose a system that knowingly deprives a child of a mom and a dad.
Gee. I read this and thought they were about to ban divorce. But I see that Indiana remains in the upper half of divorce states (and in the top 10 of states in terms of total divorce percentage increase).
ask ena
I say, let things get worse before they get better. I’m primed to see some SERIOUS BACKLASH.
Mark in Indiana
You know, I’ve lived a number of places–NYC, DC, Dallas, LA, and of course I was born in Indiana. Frankly, I doubt the people who like to climb on here an dump on my birth state know much about it, or the fact that there’s a hefty majority of very decent, fair minded people who live here. I met about as many rednecks in NYC as I do here (I live in Bloomington, a high falutin’ college with one of the nation’s best public universities–yes–check the rankings). The fact that Indiana didn’t rush the barriers on the gay marriage ban is testament to the sensible middle that many people try to hew here. I respect that, and I respect the fact that many of my neighbors are educated, and persuadable…and instead of pulling down my pants and relieving myself here, that’s what I’m going to do.
rick
this will never come to vote
b patrick bauer will see to that.
dfrw
It is Indiana, so I assumed it already had a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Mark in Indiana, please don’t be so defensive. There are fair minded people in every state. Despite that, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has passed every time it is on the ballot and it will in Indiana too. Indiana isn’t progressive and that’s a fact.
Anarchos
@Nick: Especially better than Florida. Tsk tsk, Alan.
Alan down in Florida
@ Anarchos: I make no claim on the quality of Florida. It is the elephant’s graveyard for old Jews and I am one.
Marie
@dfrw: Don’t be so sure it’ll pass. It didn’t pass in 2005, and the Legislature has more important things (I should hope) to worry about this session.
Dan O
You know we’ve actually done a decent job of shooting down these amendments in Indiana and I’m quite proud of that. So understand that i say this as a fellow liberal and gay rights activist. The hell with all of you on this forum. Stop insulting Indiana out of ignorance. We have a history of incredible pragmatism and progressiveness. We have some of the best public research institutions. The most important scientific studies into human sexuality which layed the entire foundation for our modern understanding of the subject were conducted in Indiana.
Conservatives will continue to try to impose a constitutional ban in this state (and in yours) and we here in Indiana will continue to fight them. So either lend a friendly hand or (and understand I say this in the kindest way possible) shut the fuck up and take care of business in your own state.
Dan
Holly
WOW! The fact that gay marriage is illegal in the first place pisses me off, and the fact we have to play by the rules of a bunch of fat guys who sit around and decide what else this “free country” shouldn’t be allowed to do anymore…. free country my ass. oh, and i live in Indiana, the “flattest most uninteresting place in the country”
Stephen
I do not like the fact that Indiana is pushing this issue. There already a defense of marriage act on the constitution. People minds might change in the near future about gay marriage. It will be so much harder for them to get it off the books if in the event of this ban. I still think people should be left to live there lives to be happy. Some people think if Gay marriage passes it would spur up other relationships. Its already illegal to be with a minor so that kind of marriage will never happen. Some feel that churches that do not believe in gay marriage also think they will be force to perform a same-sex marriage if it is passed. This is also not true there is a separation of church and state. Churches do not have to follow state laws they follow there beliefs. It just so stereotypical and its not even true. Why should anyone force this on anyone. How would you feel if all of a sudden marriage was illegal to everyone. Just put it in that perspective of that and see what you think. Wonder if Indiana all of a sudden said well you have no ties to a home because you were never together by our law. Wonder if the person was a stay at home housewife sort of thing and they never worked. How would they live if there partner passes away. No one really takes this into consideration I just think its dumb and cruel.
Desmond And
The U.S. Constitution doesnt say anything about GAY rights or marriage, but however a STATE cannot ban gay marriage because it is considerd discrimination and it also say’s no one or no business can judge someone by sex eighter. So therfor a staqte cannot pass a law or even its own constitution banning gay marriage/