Constitution Confusion

Indiana Republicans Want To Make Sure Their Gay Marriage Ban Sticks


Although same-sex marriage is technically banned in Indiana, marriage quality opponents are having a hearing today in an attempt to make it official.

WIBC in Indianapolis is reporting that the Indiana House Judiciary Committee will hear arguments today to write the ban on gay marriage in Indiana into the state’s constitution.

Undoubtedly unnerved by the recent wins in New Mexico and Illinois, proponents of House Joint Resolution 3 feel it is necessary to write the ban into the constitution so that it is protected from being potentially overruled by the Indiana Supreme Court.

However, in the race to deny gay and lesbian couples marriage equality in the state, Republican representatives seem to be a bit confused. From the Evansville Courier Press:

The committee, whose membership includes state Reps. Thomas Washburne, R-Evansville, and Wendy McNamara, R-Mount Vernon, will weigh the language of the proposed ban, formerly known as House Joint Resolution 6 but filed this session as House Joint Resolution 3. The committee also will review a companion bill to the proposed amendment that Republican legislative leaders say explains its intent and helps clear up concerns over how the amendment will affect the state.

Two separately-elected General Assemblies must approve the amendment before it can go to a statewide referendum. If the same wording is passed this session, the amendment will go on the November ballot.


So…not only has the ban had two different names, but it needs a companion bill to explain it even further. Seems like a lot of work to go through in order to deny Indiana gays and lesbians their rights, and it also seems like Indiana Republicans are a bit spooked.

We’ll keep you posted on how this one progresses.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #indiana #marriageequality stories and more


  • Cam

    Gee where is BJ and the other GOP defenders who continually try to claim that the party isn’t anti-gay?

    Funny how he never shows up on stories like this.

  • Scribe38

    This is why I will never vote for or give money to the GOP.

  • Dakotahgeo

    This sounds similar to the CA Prop 8 and Utah conundrums. Doesn’t IN realize that it WILL eventually be found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, no matter where they stick their amendment? Some conservatives just don’t learn very fast. Sort of like, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” Silly politicians and conservies!

  • arjuna52

    Follow this story at

    The testimony ran long today so the committee put off their vote. Huge rally planned for this evening. There’s lots of opposition by municipalities, corporations, and religious groups to the amendment.

  • Ned_Flaherty

    The Republican Party has many anti-LGBT goals, and 2 of them are anti-marriage:

    1. BLOCK the spread of marriage equality nationwide;
    2. REPEAL it wherever it exists.

    It’s written on page 10 of the latest Republican Party Platform (

    During his losing campaign to get elected President of the United States, Republican/Mormon Mitt Romney publicly signed a written vow to outlaw, repeal, and ban same-gender marriages via the U.S. Constitution.

    This is the party that the Log Cabin Republicans have spent 35 years endorsing, funding, and voting for.

    This is the party that the LCRs want to control your life.

  • Dakotahgeo

    @Ned_Flaherty: Anything labeled, “Republican, Tea Party,and/or conservative” is bad for freedom and democracy in any nation, large or small, no matter what race!

  • Trent T

    This is not a republican ban. To say that the republicans are doing it, paints them in an unfair light. We had a couple of republicans come out today and speak against the amendment.
    The amendment is being pushed by a certain group of conservative Christians who want to protect traditional marriage. The problem is that the 2 or 3 main speakers today, were not even from Indiana! Actually, the Alliance Defending Freedom seems to be the one making the charge. They are not from Indiana! Yet they pretended they knew Indiana constitutional law. We also had the Catholic Lesbian who decided that here Catholic religion trumped the lesbian thing and so gays should not raise kids because gays can’t teach kids to be moral. The republicans today did nothing really but have one of them present the bill.

  • Ned_Flaherty

    @Trent T: To the anonymous “Trent T”:

    Yes, in every state nationwide, anti-marriage bans are Republican bans.

    No, it is not “painting Republicans unfairly” (your words) to expose that the Republican Party Platform, page 10, vows to repeal and ban same-gender civil marriage everywhere, forever, via the U.S. Constitution.

    In Indiana, both the original sponsors, and the final votes, for HJR-6 (and now HJR-3) are overwhelmingly Republicans. Furthermore, the opponents are overwhelmingly Democrats. The “couple of Republicans” opposing HJR-3 are only a drop in the GOP bucket; the vast majority of their colleagues are adamant supporters.

    It’s true that the religious right uses the Republican Party to pass private bigotry into public law; however, it’s the Republican Party that allows it, and that chooses to do violence to LGBT families as part of its national goals, year after year, decade after decade.

  • Trent T

    @Ned_Flaherty: I would agree that the religious right is the one that is causing the harm and the republicans bow to their whim. That is a very valid point, especially here.

    @AuntieChrist: Hey, Auntie. I don’t think just because I don’t hate all republicans it makes me a self-hating gay. Oh and also, I am a volunteer with Freedom Indiana who coaches, trains, and recruits new volunteers to help stop HJR-3 in Indiana. So I am an active volunteer in my community versus you who is just a bitter bitch.

  • manjoguy

    In Massachusetts (of all places) we had a gay republican(pro gay marriage and pro choice) Congressional candidate in 2012. He would have won in his district had not a third “independent” candidate entered the race against that so very corrupt Democrat incumbent John “Pockets” Tierney. We gays can’t be singularly focused on just the “gay agenda.” Would we want another B.H. Obama just because he’s pro-gay? Not!

  • litper

    @manjoguy: no we will vote for people who say Russia’s “burn gays alive in ovens” laws are reasonable?

  • Cam

    @Trent T: said……”The amendment is being pushed by a certain group of conservative Christians who want to protect traditional marriage.”

    Oh I LOVE to see the twisted dance the right wing tries to use on these.

    Hey Trent, just a quick question. Which Political Party do those Conservative Christians belong to? And have any of the Party officials from the state come forward to disavow what they are doing?

    And secondly, by “Protecting Traditional Marriage” did you mean legalize hatred and bigotry?

    You know I’m sure that many Confederate soldiers claimed they were fighting to “Protect Tradition” also.

  • Esther L. Hutchins

    my neigbour recently purchased a fantastic cream Ford Shelby GT500 Convertible just by some part time working online with a cheap laptop. go right here

  • EGO

    Amazing that one of the first gay people I met back in the ’60s was from Evansville, Indiana. I keep saying that states are not ruled by churches and their leaders should be penalized for not keeping church and state separate.

  • krystalkleer

    this moron sure knows how to waste time into gett’n the state together on the same level…it’ll be defeated at some point regardless!

  • right0boy

    @hoosier1969: Totally worth it to see Bob Kevoian in drag.

  • SteveDenver

    It’s time for Anti-Gay Marriage Bans to get BEEFED UP!
    Why should marriage be “sacred” only when gays and lesbians want it?

    Let’s help Republicans impose biblical standards on marriage:
    NO marriage for non-virgins.
    NO marriage for those who are unwilling or unable to procreate immediately.
    NO birth control for married people.
    Harsh penalties for abuse, abandonment or failure to provide.
    Divorce is allowed, but not remarriage while both spouses are alive.
    A widow must go to live with her husband’s brother and he must marry her.
    Adulterers will be punshed by losing everything, including a nose or a hand. We’ll be merciful and modern, and not stone them to death.

  • rdujetz

    If this passes, will everyone villify Indiana like they did North Carolina ?

  • Tommy

    Why? why can’t we all just accept it and move on… I honestly feel like gay marriage is inevitable and instead of trying to fight it based on your own personal beliefs — Just get over it.

Comments are closed.