Movement Stalled Toward State Constitutional Amendment On Marriage
An amended version of House Joint Resolution 3, which would amend Indiana’s Constitution to include a definition of marriage as a union between only one man and one woman, passed the Senate 32-17 on Feb. 17. But since the language of the marriage amendment was changed from the resolution that passed in 2011, it will not go to voters this year.
For more than a decade, the Indiana Catholic Conference (ICC) has supported a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.
Neither side saw the Senate vote as a victory, but rather as a move that leaves the Indiana marriage amendment debate in limbo.
Proponents do not believe HJR 3, in its current form, goes far enough to protect marriage because of a House vote to delete a sentence that would have prohibited civil unions and anything similar to marriage. Opponents do not want a constitutional ban or any restriction on same-sex marriage because they claim it is discriminatory.
A push to change Indiana’s Constitution has been in the works for more than a decade, said the bill’s author, Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero. He added that “not having constitutional protection makes our state susceptible to judicial interpretation.” Turner believes “the future of marriage belongs in the hands of Hoosiers.”
Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute, a proponent of defending traditional marriage and passing HJR 3, testified in support of HJR 3 in the House and urged the Senate to restore the deleted language to HJR 3. “It’s not enough to define marriage in an amendment like this,” Smith said, “you must defend marriage. That’s the lesson we have learned from the courts around the country.”
“We remain determined to defeat HJR 3,” said Megan Robinson, campaign manager of Freedom Indiana, which opposes HJR 3 and supports same-sex marriage. She added that she was grateful that the Senate did not restore “the extremely dangerous second sentence that would permanently prohibit civil unions, domestic partnerships and other legal protections for same-sex couples.”
Smith quoted University of Notre Dame law professor Dr. Gerald Bradley, saying that one of Bradley’s key conclusions regarding marriage is , “‘The most effective way to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman is by making sure that no same-sex relationship is treated in law as substantially equivalent to it.’”
Indiana law now defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, but HJR 3 proponents have concerns that without a constitutional amendment to explicitly ban same-sex unions and same-sex relationships that are substantially equivalent to marriage, a challenge to current state law could force Indiana to recognize them.
To amend Indiana’s Constitution, an identical resolution must be passed by two separately elected Indiana General Assemblies and then be approved by a majority of voters on a referendum vote. The process to amend Indiana’s Constitution with HJR 3 was in its final stages, and was expected to pass the Indiana General Assembly this year and be put on the ballot for approval by Hoosier in November.
The version of HJR 3 introduced in this session of the legislature had the identical language of the resolution that passed in 2011. But when the Indiana House removed the second sentence, it caused the process to be postponed. At this point, the soonest the amendment could go to Hoosier voters would be 2016.
“While it’s disappointing that HJR 3 didn’t pass in its original form, meaning the process to amend Indiana’s Constitution will be delayed, it could prove to be a blessing in disguise,” said Glenn Tebbe of the Indiana Catholic Conference. “As we have seen play-out in other states in recent weeks, a successful constitutional amendment of this nature would most certainly be challenged in federal court under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“The effect of this type of challenge could potentially speed-up the unraveling of Indiana’s current definition of marriage – inadvertently having a reverse effect,” Tebbe added. “So rather than protecting traditional marriage, which is the goal of this constitutional amendment, it could have the unintended consequence of putting Indiana on a fast-track to being forced to recognize same-sex marriage.”
“The striking phenomenon and remarkable speed of changing attitudes of the nature of marriage shows that the Church has more work to do informing the faithful on the authentic nature of marriage,” Tebbe said. “Defending the authentic nature of marriage is going to be an ongoing struggle in our modern secular culture, and an effort our faith community will be engaged in.”
The Indiana General Assembly only has a few weeks left to conduct legislative business as it must adjourn by March 14.
