Amendment to ban same-sex unions passes Indiana House

Current laws banning same-sex marriage and legally recognized domestic partnerships are on the way to becoming an Indiana constitutional amendment after a Tuesday vote in the Indiana House of Representatives.

The House voted 70-26 in favor of House Joint Resolution 6, authored by State Reps. Eric Turner, R-Marion, and Dave Cheatham, D-North Vernon.

The resolution would add language to the Indiana state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman and preventing the state from creating “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage.” These provisions are currently enacted through Indiana law.

State Rep. Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington, voted in favor of the resolution. State Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, voted against it.

“I am pleased with tonight’s vote and respectfully hope our counterparts in the Senate will support HJR 6 as well,” Turner said in a statement.

This vote is the first step in the process to amend the state constitution. Next, the resolution must be approved by the Indiana Senate, by both houses of the 2013-14 General Assembly and, finally, by Indiana voters.

Proponents of the amendment say constitutionalizing the state’s marriage provisions put the power of decision in the hands of voters and out of the reach of judges.

“You could have same-sex marriage, like in the state of Iowa, because some judges decide they want it,” said Rep. Bob Heaton, R-Terre Haute. “We’re just going to allow Indiana voters in the future to vote on this.”

Heaton said his concern is that Indiana’s same-sex marriage or civil union legislation will be affected by judicial officials.

Judicial review has already undermined laws in Iowa, California and Connecticut, among other states. Marriage licenses are granted to same-sex couples in Iowa and Connecticut, and the legal battle about California’s Proposition 8 is still underway.

Much of the resolution’s opposition comes from people who believe a constitutional amendment is unnecessary and too difficult to overturn.

Repeal of the amendment would require the same process as initially passing it.
“As far as I’m concerned, HJR 6 is nothing more than a discriminatory amendment by people with extreme religious views forcing them onto the public masses,” said IU junior Robert Clayton, president of OUT, IU’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender student union.

Clayton said because the amendment is several years from final passage, OUT is not planning any counter-measures yet. He said he will send information on the bill to members of the organization.

“It’s a dangerous idea to amend the constitution,” said Deborah Widiss, associate professor at the Maurer School of Law. “Once you amend the constitution it can have unintended effects on other areas of law.”

One primary area of concern is domestic violence cases.

“The problem with this is not only can there not be civil unions, but domestic abuse laws wouldn’t be upheld for same-sex couples,” Clayton said.

Widiss said after Ohio passed a similar constitutional amendment, some courts held that domestic abuse laws could not be applied to different-sex couples who were living together or dating but unmarried because it created a status similar to marriage.

Clayton and Widiss both said they were concerned about the availability of health care and other benefits for same-sex couples, as well.

Widiss said that in Michigan, courts held that a similar constitutional amendment prohibited state employers from providing health care or other benefits to same-sex partners of employees. Universities claimed this would make it difficult for them to
recruit faculty.

These concerns are contingent on the amendment passing, but in the short term, Clayton said he wanted to see the resolution succeed in this first round of votes. That way, GLBT organizations in the state could work to remove those legislators from the Statehouse, he said.

Turner nevertheless continues to support constitutional language banning same-sex marriages and legal partnerships.

“We are ensuring that our current law, which the vast majority of Hoosiers support, is not overturned by an activist judge,” he said in Tuesday’s statement.

Several similar attempts have been blocked in recent years, but none have been approved by voters and gone into effect.

“It’s an important issue,” Widiss said. “It’ll be interesting to see it play out.”