State marriage amendment stalled in Indiana House

By Brigid Curtis Ayer

A bill to amend Indiana’s constitution to protect the definition of marriage stalled in the House on March 18 during a hearing before the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee because of concerns raised by a few influential Indiana employers.

Human resource representatives from WellPoint and Cummins planted seeds of doubt in the minds of Hoosier lawmakers about advancing the marriage amendment bill to second reading in the House because of claims that it could hurt their companies’ recruitment opportunities and benefit packages. Dow AgroSciences raised similar concerns in a letter to

Rep. B. Patrick Bauer (D-South Bend), the House’s speaker.

Senate Joint Resolution 7, the marriage amendment which passed the Senate 39-10, would amend Indiana’s Constitution to define that a marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. In effect, the marriage amendment would ban same-sex marriages in Indiana.

The purpose of the amendment is to protect the nature of marriage by preventing an Indiana court from redefining marriage as anything other than a union between one man and one woman.

Senate Joint Resolution 7 has two parts. Part “a” defines marriage as a union between only one man and one woman. Part “b” is the section of the resolution which has raised concerns and debate.

Subsection “b” of the resolution states, “This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon couples or groups.”

Concerns and confusion about how part “b” may be interpreted has caused at least 10 senators to vote against the measure, and several members of the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee are now at odds with the bill as it is written.

The concerns with part “b” range from a possibility of harming the way domestic violence situations are handled to possible problems of limiting benefits employers want to provide family members of their employees. The latest concern raised by employers is it will hurt their recruitment opportunities by making Indiana appear to be non-inclusive or even discriminatory toward homosexuals.

In a 2003 document published by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons,” the document concluded, “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.

“Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society,” the document continued, “but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.”

Currently, Indiana law allows marriage between only one man and one woman. When the law was challenged, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the state law and upheld Indiana’s definition of marriage between one woman and one man in the case of Morrison v Sadler.

“Even though the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed state law, it’s possible another challenge to Indiana’s marriage law could result in a different ruling by the court which could redefine marriage, a situation passage of Senate Joint Resolution 7 would prohibit,” said Glenn Tebbe, Indiana Catholic Conference executive director, who testified in support of the Senate resolution on March 18 before the House panel.

“As a basic human and social institution, marriage—though regulated by civil laws and Church laws—did not originate either from the Church or the state, but from God,” Tebbe said. “Therefore, neither Church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.”

Nationwide, 27 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage, and 15 states, including Indiana, already have a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Seven states, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, California, Maine and Hawaii, and the District of Columbia, have created some form of legal union to same-sex couples and offer varying rights and responsibilities typically granted to traditional married couples.

Rep. Scott Pelath (D-Michigan City), co-sponsor of the bill and chair of the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee, has not decided if he will amend the resolution or call Senate Joint Resolution 7 for a vote.

Senate Joint Resolution 7 must pass in the House in the same form as it passed in the Senate for the amendment to be eligible for a vote by Indiana residents in the 2008 election. If passed by a majority of voters, the amendment would become part of the Indiana Constitution.

(Brigid Curtis Ayer is a correspondent for The Criterion.) †