Constitutional ban battle intensifies

INDIANAPOLIS -- Gay men and lesbians have lost the first round against a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but many plan to intensify their fight against the proposal's becoming an amendment to the document.\n"This marks the beginning of an enormous struggle that unfortunately is going to be very divisive and is going to turn attention away from issues that are more pressing in the state of Indiana, and that is economic development," said Jeff Miner, pastor of an Indianapolis church founded by gay men and lesbians.\nThe Indiana House finalized a first step toward a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, approving the proposal with bipartisan support Tuesday.\nProponents hailed the 76-23 vote as a move toward shielding the sanctity of traditional marriage from activist judges, while opponents denounced it as targeting gay men and lesbians for discrimination.\n"The basic unit of our society is the family, and the cornerstone of the family is marriage, and marriage is the union of one man and one woman," said Rep. Eric Turner, R-Gas City. "A strong consensus has emerged in our country and our state that marriage must be strengthened."\nAll 52 Republicans joined 24 Democrats in voting for the proposal, whereas all 23 who voted against it, including Rep. Craig Fry of Mishawaka, were Democrats.\n"I'm offended we would pick on a certain group in our society who are not bothering me, who are not bothering you, who are not bothering anybody," Fry said. "I believe it is a tragedy, and I am embarrassed for this chamber."\nThe same proposal passed the Republican-controlled Senate 42-8 earlier this session.\nHowever, amending the constitution requires a resolution to pass consecutive, separately elected General Assemblies and then approved in a statewide vote. That means if the proposal passes again in 2007 or 2008, it could be on the November ballot in 2008.\nIndiana, like at least 42 other states, already has a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage.\nA similar resolution passed the Republican-controlled Senate with bipartisan support last year, but Democrats who controlled the House then refused GOP attempts to advance or even debate it. Democrats controlled the chamber 51-49 then, and all 49 Republicans had pledged to support the amendment.\nRepublicans now have a 52-48 majority in the House, and House Speaker Brian Bosma had pledged efforts to pass it this session. Bosma commended Tuesday's debate as open and calm.\nThe proposed amendment would define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman." It also says state law "may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."\nAbout a dozen states approved amendments to their state constitutions last year banning same-sex marriage, and more are considering them.\nThe movement stems in part from a national debate that has been ongoing since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional.\nMiner said opponents of the amendment plan an "economic boycott" to discourage Indiana college graduates from accepting jobs here, those from elsewhere from doing the same and warning companies against intolerance.