Crowd packs Statehouse for conservative group’s rally

INDIANAPOLIS – More than 1,000 people packed the Statehouse on Tuesday to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Advance America founder Eric Miller urged lawmakers to repeal property taxes and support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.\n“It’s not a Republican or Democrat issue,” he said. “It’s right versus wrong.”\nAmending Indiana’s constitution requires a resolution to pass consecutive, separately elected General Assemblies and then be approved in a statewide vote. The Legislature passed the proposal in 2005, so if it is approved this year or in 2008, it could appear on the November 2008 ballot.\nRepublican Rep. Jackie Walorski urged House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, to allow a vote on the resolution so the decision will be left up to voters.\n“Mr. Speaker, we want to vote on this issue,” the Lakeville, Ind. lawmaker told the crowd.\nThe House Rules Committee has heard from both supporters and opponents about the proposed resolution but has not taken a vote. Committee Chairman Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said Tuesday that he has not scheduled a meeting to vote on the matter.\nAmong the committee’s options are voting on the amendment without changes, or voting first to remove a provision that critics say could have unintended consequences. Proponents have said that if any of the language is changed, it would restart the lengthy amendment process. Pelath has said it may be possible to remove a part of the proposed amendment and still have another part continue on course, but said the question needed more analysis.\nThe proposed amendment has two sections. The first section states that marriage in Indiana is the union of one man and one woman. The second includes a phrase that 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.”\nSome opponents say the second provision is vague and could be used to nullify domestic violence laws that apply to married and unmarried couples. They also fear it could eliminate domestic partner benefits offered by some companies, universities and other employers.\nSupporters of the amendment say the second provision simply means courts cannot force the government to provide same-sex benefits. They say it does not prohibit the government, public employers or anyone else from voluntarily offering such benefits.\nResolution sponsor Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Monticello, told those at the rally that opponents have tried to obfuscate the proposed amendment by saying the second part is vague or hard to understand.\n“They’re wrong,” Hershman said.