You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.


  • USDA opens 9,600 more acres in Indiana for program
    INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A federal program that rewards farmers for turning some of their land into wildlife habitat has opened up another 9,600 acres of Indiana farmland.
  • St. Joseph County eyes stricter abortion law
    SOUTH BEND – A proposed ordinance that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital has stalled in a northern Indiana county. A St.
  • Good Samaritan adding devices
    VINCENNES – Money raised through golf tournaments, holiday galas and even motorcycle poker runs goes to buy equipment such as a 3-D breast tomo/stereotactic unit, equipment that in the capable hands of the staff at Good Samaritan
The vote
Here is how area House members voted on the amendment to strike the second sentence of the gay marriage ban:
Rep. Casey Cox, R-Fort Wayne
Rep. Phil GiaQuinta, D-Fort Wayne
Rep. Kathy Heuer, R-Columbia City
Rep. Rebecca Kubacki, R-Syracuse
Rep. Dan Leonard, R-Huntington
Rep. Martin Carbaugh, R-Fort Wayne
Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne
Rep. Bob Morris, R-Fort Wayne
Rep. Dave Ober, R-Albion
Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn
Rep. Dave Wolkins, R-Winona Lake
Rep. Dennis Zent, R-Angola

Altered gay-marriage ban heads to House

INDIANAPOLIS – Twenty-three Republicans joined 29 Democrats voting in a bipartisan fashion Monday to remove the contentious second sentence of the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The 52-43 tally – with five members excused – sends the altered proposal to the full House for a vote possibly today.

The vote came after a short but intense debate, and was met with cheering outside the House by Hoosiers opposing the gay marriage ban.

“You can be safe or you can be brave,” said Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City. “I choose to be brave.”

He said while his constituents believe in the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman, support wanes when they realize the second sentence of the proposed amendment would prohibit the enactment of civil unions.

The measure says, “Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.”

This language mirrors a state law already on the books.

But the second sentence of the proposal went further, saying: “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

The language would ban civil unions, and some opponents also believe the language could block universities and private businesses from offering insurance to same-sex partners of employees.

“I believe (House Joint Resolution 3) as written is the right public policy for the state,” said Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, author of the proposal. “The second sentence simply prevents marriage under another name.”

He added that removing the sentence prolongs the debate for several years.

That’s because a constitutional amendment must pass two separately elected legislatures. That would mean another vote in 2015 if the language remained. The earliest it could go to a statewide referendum would be 2016.

Some have argued the proposed amendment could still go to the ballot this year because the language of the first sentence will have passed twice – 2011 and 2014.

But the change House members made Monday did more than just delete a line. It specifically referred the proposal to the next General Assembly for reconsideration and agreement.

If the House sends the revamped amendment to the Senate, that chamber also could restore the original language.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, was asked about the possibility Friday and initially said, “I think we probably would honor the version that comes over from the House.”

But he added that when it comes to the Senate floor, it’s open to amendment, so “a reverse could happen. It’s really up to the will of the senators here, and it will be their decision, Republican and Democrat.”

During House debate, Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland, argued against changing the wording, saying Hoosiers want the ability to vote on marriage. “All we’re doing is killing legislation many of us have worked hard to accomplish,” he said.

But those who wanted the second sentence removed said the process will move forward and Hoosiers will still have their say.

Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany, said this gives lawmakers and their constituents more time to analyze the measure “rather than rushing to meet the expiration date on an amendment whose time has already passed.”