Though Democrats captured Indiana's House of Representatives on election day, gay rights activists shouldn't count on making up any lost ground just yet.\nSoon-to-be House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, announced before the elections that he would allow SJR07, the proposed amendment to the state constitution that would explicitly ban gay marriage, to be heard again in 2007. Bauer said in a statement that he wants to bring the legislation to the floor to ensure its defeat because he said Indiana already has a statute that defines marriage, making further legislation redundant.\nHowever, many expect the amendment, which passed both the House and Senate with overwhelming approval in 2005, to be passed again by both the House and Senate and placed on the 2008 ballot, when voters will decide its fate.\nRep. Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington, voted for the resolution in 2005 and said she plans to vote for it again in 2007.\n"I anticipate it will pass the same way it passed in the 2005," she said.\nAnd Welch isn't an anomaly. She is one of several Democrats who supported the amendment in 2005. The legislation passed the House by a vote of 72-23 in a term where Republican representatives outnumbered Democratic representatives by a margin of only 52-48. The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 42-8.\n"During the last (hearing), the vote was fairly substantive in favor of (the amendment)," said John Schorg, director of media relations for the Indiana House Democrats. "I think that's indicative of the general mood of the body."\nIf the referendum makes it to the ballot, there's a good chance the people of Indiana will pass it, too, said Judy Failer, assistant professor of political science at IU.\nFailer's prediction is partially based on the fact that eight states had amendments banning gay marriage on the ballot this fall. Of those, seven states' electorates voted to pass the amendment.
The Part B debate
But the passage of Indiana's amendment could be hindered because of the amendment's Part B, which has caused confusion for elected officials and their constituents.\nPart A of the amendment explicitly states marriage can only be between a woman and a man. Part B, however, reads: "This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."\nSchorg said some people think this section bans civil unions, which are different than marriage because all the legal benefits of marriage might not apply to unions and unions are recognized only within the state they are issued.\nRep. Bruce Borders of Jasonville, Ind., one of the Republicans who sponsored the amendment, said Part B is meant to exclude unmarried couples from enjoying the rights and benefits of a married couple.\n"We aren't going to convey all legal benefits of marriage ... to relationships outside of a man and woman," he said. "I'm not specifically aware of (the amendment) going beyond the definition of marriage and the legal rights of marriage."\nEither way, Failer said she thinks this section is "dangerous" because certain laws, such as those pertaining to domestic violence, wouldn't apply to heterosexual or homosexual couples who live together. She said similar legislation in states like Ohio and Michigan has already been interpreted to mean that domestic violence laws don't apply to any unmarried couple.\nHowever, Borders said he doesn't think the passage of the amendment would affect a woman's ability to report domestic violence. He said despite the wording of Part B, several statutes in the state criminal code would still allow women to press charges against men for abuse and allow responding officers to charge a partner with domestic violence.\nFailer also said Part B could take away domestic partnership rights, like the ability for a person to be his or her partner's legal "next of kin," which would allow a partner to make medical decisions for the other if he or she were incapacitated. Part B might also prohibit a person from collecting anything from a partner's employee benefits plan, like health care coverage, Failer said. \nCurrently, IU extends benefits to domestic partners, but this would change with the passage of the amendment, she said. However, Borders said he wasn't sure if IU's policies would have to change, though he said the law probably wouldn't permit a member of an unmarried couple to collect a partner's disability or Social Security benefits.
An uncertain future
Still, it's uncertain whether Part B will be clarified in the next hearing. Schorg said he doesn't know of anyone who is working to push for a change of language at this time. But Rep. David Orentlicher, D-Indianapolis, said he expects someone to fight Part B because in previous hearings people proposed amendments to delete it.\nIf the amendment is changed in any way, its passage would be delayed by at least two years, and Welch said she's not sure if questions surrounding Part B will keep it from moving forward.\nBut same-sex couples are desperately hoping legislators will change the amendment's wording and consequently delay its passage. \nMatt Brunner, an IU senior majoring in political science and a gay rights activist, said he plans to lobby politicians to change the "problematic" language of Part B and said he thinks legislators passing only Part A is same-sex couples' "best bet" at this time.\n"Hopefully, if the wording of the amendment is changed again and it's delayed by another four years, people will just give up and abandon their efforts to change constitution," he said. \nBut Borders said he thinks the proposed amendment might not even reach a floor vote. He said Bauer has promised to hear the resolution if it passes the Senate again, but Borders said he thinks Bauer might send it to a committee, where it could be "killed" in a variety of ways.\nIf the amendment is passed without alterations, however, Failer said she doesn't think it would be for the "long term" since states like New Jersey and Massachusetts have already legally recognized same-sex couples. \nOrentlicher, who's married to Failer, said Indiana's marriage amendment is purely political and said he thinks the state will eventually allow more rights for same-sex couples.\n"Allowing civil unions is clearly the trend -- it's just a question of when it happens," he said.
