You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter 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.

Local

  • Huntington center given $100,000
    Job-hunters have another ally.Huntington manufacturer PHD Inc. and Huntington University have contributed $50,000 apiece to a proposed employment training effort.The amount was announced Thursday.The $1.
  • Area lends Bhutan helping hand
    More than 7,000 miles from home, Tshewang Tashi is learning about America’s agriculture systems.
  • Helping feed hungry kids
    Helping feed hungry kids
Advertisement
The vote
Here is how area House members voted on the amendment to strike the second sentence of the gay marriage ban:
Yes:
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
No:
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
Associated Press
Indiana Speaker of the House Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, left, shows his dismay as the House takes up second reading of HJR-3 while lead sponsor Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, makes his last appeal to colleagues in Indianapolis on Monday, The House, which is dominated by Republicans, voted 52-43 to pass an amendment by Rep. Randy Truitt, R-W. Lafayette, striking the second sentence from HJR-3. (The Indianapolis Star | Charlie Nye)
General Assembly

Amended gay marriage ban to House

Ban on civil unions pulled; ballot vote could be delayed

– 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 move could put off a vote by Hoosiers for two more years.

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.

“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.” That provision 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. 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 that 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.”

nkelly@jg.net

Advertisement