Resolution To Amend Indiana Constitution Banning Same Sex Marriage And Civil Unions Approved By House Judiciary Committee 7-3; Moves To Full Senate Where It Is Expected To Pass; Final Decision Likely To Be 2014 Voter Referendum

The Evansville Courier Press reports that Indiana legislators took another step Wednesday toward amending a same sex marriage ban into Indiana’s constitution, the Senate Judiciary Committee approving a constitutional amendment that would effectively limit marriage to one man and one woman, and would bar civil unions or other legal recognition of same sex couples’ relationships, by vote of 7-3. House Joint Resolution 6 has already cleared the House and now moves to the full Senate, where it is expected to pass. Senator Dennis Kruse (Republican-Auburn) said that the Senate has approved such a ban five times, but that it had been previously blocked by Democratic majorities in the House. Now, however, Republicans control both chambers. “The basic unit of our society is our family, and I think the cornerstone of the family is the marriage of a man and a women and having children,” said Kruse. “I think that is part of the main thrust of the whole idea here is to protect that unit that is basic to our society and all other societies.”Senator Tim Lanane (Democrat-Anderson) expressed concern that banning civil unions will affect domestic partnership health benefits, and offered an amendment that addresses what he called the “troubling language of the resolution.” He Indiana compromise, and not recognize same sex marriage, but recognize same sex relationships by allowing civil unions.“I think Indiana should seek compromise in this situation,” he said. “Why shouldn’t we exercise some independent thinking in this regards?”His amendment failed by a vote of 3-7. Lanane said there is continual shift in thinking on the issue of same sex marriage, and that since Indiana already has a law limiting marriage to one man and one woman, there is no need to codify that definition in the constitution, as well. Senator John Broden (Democrat-South Bend) worried lawmakers would write ambiguous language into the state constitution, saying “I rest upon the fact that we have a statute — a statute that has been found constitutional by our courts, that is clear, that is unambiguous and I think we should stick with that and not proceed further into uncharted waters at this time.” Senator Brent Steele (Republican-Bedford) said that if Democrats are correct in their assessment that the attitudes of Indiana have changed, they have nothing to fear, since a constitutional amendment also requires the approval of a majority of state residents. The constitutional amendment process requires the exact same language win the approval of both chambers of the General Assembly in two consecutive but separately elected legislatures, meaning that after the 2011 vote, the House and Senate would have to approve the measure once again in either 2013 or 2014, and if passed, voters would have the final say in a November 2014 referendum. As previously posted, last week, prominent Indiana businesses testified that the amendment would hinder their ability to recruit top talent. Representatives from Eli Lilly and Co. and Cummins Inc. said such a ban could stop their companies from providing domestic partnership benefits, and could block them from recruiting some qualified job prospects into the state. Jim Bopp, a Terre Haute attorney and a Republican National Committeeman, testified that the proposed amendment would not affect employers’ benefits.