Ind. same-sex marriage battle could focus on amendment’s language

INDIANAPOLIS — The success of a sparsely-worded constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage on Indiana could hinge on whether lawmakers remove a key sentence expanding its reach, House and Senate Republican leaders said Tuesday.

The battle over gay marriage is expected to dominate the upcoming 2014 session. The state already has a law banning same-sex marriage, but some gay marriage opponents are concerned that a judge could overturn the law, so they want it enshrined in the state constitution.

The proposed amendment, if passed, would restrict marriage to being between a man and woman. But it would also further restrict the rights of same-sex couples and ban lawmakers from reconsidering the issue in the future.

Those additional restrictions, which are in the second sentence of the proposed amendment, have drawn increasing concern from lawmakers.

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.

Sign Up

Daily

Weekly

Good News

Promotions (occasional)

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said Tuesday it might be possible to delete those additional restrictions while still sending the amendment to voters next November. But Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said legislative lawyers have advised him that an altered amendment would likely restart the state’s lengthy process for altering its constitution.

Constitutional amendments must be approved in two consecutive biennial sessions of the General Assembly and then be placed on the ballot. Lawmakers have already approved the proposed gay marriage ban once but would have to do so again before it could be put to voters.

Article continues below

“What we’ve heard from (the Legislative Services Agency) is if we do that, it’s likely it would not hold up in court. If we send it to the public in the fall, amended, it could be on very shaky ground,” Long said.

“Why would we send something to the public we knew could be challenged in the court as unconstitutional?” he said.

House Minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, and Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, both asked Bosma and Long to put off the issue for next session. They said lawmakers should focus more on economic growth and job-creation measures during the session.

But Bosma has said he plans to press forward with the issue.