Panel fails to pass amendment banning gay marriage in state

INDIANAPOLIS – A proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage failed to pass a key House committee Tuesday, and some lawmakers said the proposal is dead for this year.\nThe House Rules Committee voted 5-5 on a resolution supporting the amendment, with five Democrats voting against it and four Republicans and one Democrat voting for it. Since there was not a majority of votes for the resolution, the measure failed to pass.\nCommittee Chairman Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said the emotional issue is over for this legislative session.\n“I consider the matter dispensed with,” Pelath said. “We took a vote and the matter is dispensed with.”\nResolution sponsor Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, agreed that the proposal appeared dead.\n“I think the voters of the state of Indiana should have a right to express their views on the issue,” Hershman said, “but I have never criticized anyone for their stance either for or against this, and I’m not going to start now.”\nHowever, the issue could come up again next year.\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 either this year or in 2008, it could appear on the November 2008 ballot.\nSeveral lawmakers who voted against the proposal worried about the second section of the amendment, which states 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 Indiana companies and university employees have lobbied lawmakers, saying that part of the amendment could stop domestic partner benefits. \nPelath said the state should not change the constitution without knowing all the consequences of the amendment.\n“Once the constitution’s amended, you don’t get a second shot,” he said.\nBut supporters of the constitutional amendment say the proposal would simply stop courts from forcing 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, and that domestic violence statutes would not be affected.\nRep. Eric Turner, R-Marion, said concerns over domestic violence laws and domestic partner benefits are unfounded. He said that argument was an effort by opponents to delay the implementation of the proposed amendment.\n“I don’t buy the argument,” he said.\nLawmakers have been heavily lobbied on the issue by supporters and opponents. They have heard from gay rights organizations and conservative family associations. They have been bombarded with e-mails and phone calls. They have seen hundreds come to Statehouse rallies – more than 1,000 people supporting the amendment last week and more than 200 opposing the amendment in February.