Give Now

Delays, Closings and Severe Weather - View All Alerts and Updates

Indiana House Changes HJR-3 To Restart Ratification Process

The House of Representatives voted to amend the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage--a move that could restart the ratification process.

house chambers

Photo: Emily Penguin (flickr)

The House of Representatives chambers sit empty in the Indiana Statehouse.

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers today voted to remove a portion of HJR-3, the proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. If the amendment bill is approved by the full House and the Senate, the change would restart the entire approval process.

Twenty-three Republicans joined 29 Democrats to approve the amendment offered by Rep. Randy Truitt, R-West Lafayette, removing HJR-3’s second sentence, a portion that banned legal statuses “substantially similar” to marriage. Some have expressed concerns the second sentence would prohibit the ability to offer domestic partnership benefits.

A companion bill was filed this session seeking to clarify that would not be the case.

But Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, says while he supports HJR-3’s ban on same sex marriage, the companion bill doesn’t make anything clearer.

“If we cannot understand in this body exactly what that second sentence means, how can we expect millions of Hoosiers to understand what it means when they go to the polls in November?” he says.

Truitt’s amendment also pushed back ratification of the amendment, requiring the General Assembly to approve it both this year and in either 2015 or 2016 in order to place it on the ballot in November of 2016.

HJR-3 is now eligible for passage by the House. If approved, it would head to the Senate,where lawmakers there could undo the House’s change.

Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland, disagreed with the amendment and says his constituents want to weigh in this year.

“Let them make the decision,” he says. “Let’s get this thing moving. Let’s move it along as it is and let’s get the voters the opportunity to vote.”

Despite the change supporters and opponents of the measure aren’t changing their arguments.

Indiana Family Institute President Curt Smith says, without the second sentence, HJR-3 is more vulnerable to a legal challenge, but his organization will still back the resolution.

“It would be worth supporting but of course the whole process would start over,” he says. “It would be less effective in bolstering marriage but it would still be an important statement.”

John Cardwell heads a coalition of senior and disabled-care advocacy organizations who say they’re making the defeat of HJR-3 a priority. He says removing the second sentence does not make the resolution less objectionable.

“I think we’re unified in saying no. It’s still just a basic piece of discrimination,” he says.

Freedom Indiana campaign manager Megan Robertson, who leads a coalition of businesses, universities, governmental, community and religious leaders opposed to HJR-3, says her organization is grateful the House removed the second sentence.

Still, she says her group remains committed to keeping the amendment off the ballot in November.

Brandon Smith, IPBS

Brandon Smith, IPBS has previously worked as a reporter and anchor for KBIA Radio in Columbia, MO, and at WSPY Radio in Plano, IL as a show host, reporter, producer and anchor. Brandon graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia with a Bachelor of Journalism in 2010, with minors in political science and history. He was born and raised in Chicago.

View all posts by this author »

  • Terry

    This is a big victory that can see us change the IN House and Senate and make it blue!

  • The Professor

    Someone should tell these folks that wasting all this time and money on a go-nowhere bill will be both embarrassing and moot in a few years when the Supreme Court rules all of these bigoted bans unconstitutional.

  • Inis_Magrath

    Tweak the text and thereby restart the clock — a cynical move by House Republicans. The fundamental question, can the civil right of marriage be denied to a couple merely because of their sexual orientation, will almost certainly be addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States by June of 2015 (likely) or June 2016 the latest. All serious legal observers of the court predict the SCOTUS will rule, no — the civil right of marriage cannot be denied to same-sex couples.

    So the Indiana House Republicans cynically get to have their cake and eat it too. They can point to their unwavering position against gay people’s rights, but by the time the constitutional amendment would reach the voters in 2016 it will be moot. Be ready for heated cries of “judicial activism.”

What is RSS? RSS makes it possible to subscribe to a website's updates instead of visiting it by delivering new posts to your RSS reader automatically. Choose to receive some or all of the updates from Indiana Public Media News:

Support For Indiana Public Media Comes From

Search News

Stay Connected

RSS e-mail itunes Facebook Twitter Flickr YouTube

Follow us on Twitter

What is RSS? RSS makes it possible to subscribe to a website's updates instead of visiting it by delivering new posts to your RSS reader automatically. Choose to receive some or all of the updates from Indiana Public Media News:

Recent Stories

Recent Videos

Find Us on Facebook