State limits gay rights

Same-sex couples have no constitutional right to marry, an Indiana appellate court ruled Thursday, opening the door for an Indiana constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.\nThe Indiana Court of Appeals said the Indiana General Assembly should decide whether or not a state constitutional amendment is needed to deny or grant same-sex couples the same legal privileges and rights as heterosexual partners, up to and including same-sex civil unions or a legislated ban against such institutions.\nA decision was not immediately made on whether to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, but supporters of the ban said they would continue their push for Indiana to join other states with constitutional amendments barring the unions.\nThe court ruled that Indiana has an interest in seeing that children are raised in stable environments and suggesting traditional marriage is the best way to do so.\nKenneth Falk, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued the case for same-sex couple David Wene and David Squire, said any future constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage would be a step backward. \n"The court basically found that discrimination is acceptable based on the ability to procreate," Falk said. "We are faced with a significant step backward."\nOpponents of same-sex marriage applauded the ruling but worried about its effect on a possible state constitutional amendment. \nTo say gender doesn't matter in marriage "fires people up," Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana said to The Associated Press.\nClark, however, worried Thursday that with the Court of Appeals upholding existing state law, some lawmakers would find a constitutional amendment unnecessary.\n"It's an issue that's not going to go away," Clark said to the AP.\nIndiana House Speaker Brian Bosma said Republican lawmakers still planned to advance a state constitutional amendment to specifically ban gay marriages.\n"Today's decision makes marriage safe again for the time being," Bosma said Thursday. "It does not positively protect marriage from future courts."\nIndianapolis residents Wene and Squire entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2000; their lawsuit challenged Indiana law, which narrowly defines "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman. They hoped to be legally recognized as a "married" couple. According to the 2000 census, Wene and Squire are among the more than 10,000 same-sex couples living together in Indiana.\nFalk said his clients have 30 days to seek a review before the Indiana Supreme Court. He said he hasn't discussed this possibility with his clients.\nHelen Harrell, an African Studies professor and adviser for OUT, which is a GLBT student union, said she isn't surprised by the appellate court's ruling -- instead she said the ruling is a disappointment and hurtful to members of the IU and Bloomington GLBT communities.\n"I think the American and state Constitutions guarantee certain legal contracts for all people -- to deny that is to deny certain rights everyone in this country has," Harrell said. "I think it's a great possibility we will go back before we go forward."\nHarrell said it would be redundant to amend the state constitution. "Everyone has a constitutional right to form unions and make contracts," she said.\nHarrell said the specific wording of the appellate court judges seems to leave the issue of civil unions open-ended.\n"(The appellate court) is not saying they are either for or against civil unions, just same-sex marriage. They are leaving the issue open for the state legislature," Harrell said.\nThe Associated Press contributed to this article.\n-- Contact City & State Editor David A. Nosko at dnosko@indiana.edu.