Should Indiana have a constitutional amendment defining marriage?

Following the Indiana Senate’s passage Tuesday of Senate Joint Resolution 7, an amendment legally defining marriage as between one man and one woman, IU’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community leaders spoke out.\nThe proposed amendment, if passed by two separately elected general assemblies and approved by a statewide referendum, would also make it illegal to require agencies to give unmarried couples the same benefits as married couples. The state already has a law that bans gay marriage.\nDoug Bauder, coordinator of IU’s GLBT Student Support Services, said the biggest concern he had about the bill was the effect it would have on IU faculty members who receive domestic partner benefits.\n“We have a lot of faculty who come to this campus because these services are offered,” Bauder said. “Every year we have the opportunity to relate to potential professors who are attracted here because there will be benefits for their partner.”\nAlthough Bauder said there is not a large number of IU faculty and students who would be affected by the bill, the University risks losing some of its best faculty. He said those who are not directly affected could be turned of by such a “mean-spirited” approach.\nAccording to the University Human Resource Service Web site, domestic partner benefits include medical and dental coverage, tuition subsidies, life insurance and personal accident insurance. Bauder said these are the same benefits that spouses of IU employees receive. \nThe biological and legally adopted children of domestic partners are also eligible for coverage.\nJoshua Sutton, president of OUT, a group affiliated with GLBT Student Support Services, said the Senate’s decision initially came as a shock.\n“Even though this is a state issue, the same issue is going throughout the country,” Sutton said. “For a country trying to eliminate racism and hatred and prejudice, the lawmakers are only setting themselves up to fight with citizens.”\nSutton said OUT’s mission is to support students who have come out as gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual, but said, “It’s hard to come out and be comfortable with it if you’re frowned down by other people. Especially by the law.”\nIf the amendment, which now goes to the House of Representatives, is passed, he said that as a student organization, OUT’s work would be seen as obsolete and unnecessary. But on a personal level, he said his future would be seriously impacted.\n“I’m nowhere near getting married, but what am I actually working toward if I’m never going to be able to get married?” he said. “What’s there to work for if after I graduate college and meet someone, but won’t be recognized by the state as a ‘couple’?”\nSutton said that because Bloomington has an especially gay-friendly environment, the proposed amendment could damage the Bloomington economy, the morale of the town, friendships and business partnerships.\n“It will affect the diversity of the town because people will feel like they’ve lost the battle,” he said. “There is no need to join a gay-friendly community if people will be attacked for their actions.”\nBauder said there are other things legislation should focus on – more important things. \n“Environmental issues, health care, tax issues, providing services to people in need,” Bauder said of other legislative options. “It doesn’t seem like focusing on more divisive issues makes sense.”