'Substantially similar' focus of debate on Indiana same-sex amendment at Franklin College

Henegar, who opposes the amendment, and supporter Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute, faced off in a debate moderated by former Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard Monday evening at Franklin College.

The exchange largely explored the meaning of the amendment’s second sentence.

The first sentence of the amendment is identical to current Indiana law in defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But the intent of the second sentence, which seeks to ban a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage, has become a matter of interpretation.

It’s likely the most controversial part of the legislation, House Joint Resolution 3, now before the General Assembly. The debate, attended by about 325 people, was held hours after the House Judiciary Committee heard more than three hours of testimony regarding the amendment but recessed without voting on whether to send it on to the full House for a vote.

In an effort to clarify the proposed amendment, Republican legislative leaders last week introduced a companion measure that outlines a handful of items it will not prohibit, such as employer benefits and protection under the state’s domestic violence laws.

Henegar, though, argued Monday evening the amendment prevents the government from extending rights and benefits to all unmarried couples.

“The much debated second sentence isn’t about marriage at all,” Henegar said. “It’s how far beyond marriage does the impact go. The impact of the amendment on the lives of unmarried couples is so unclear (the General Assembly) is considering passing a separate law that is seven times longer than the amendment itself just to explain what the amendment means.”

But Smith countered that Hoosier voters and the courts are capable of understanding the second sentence’s wording of “substantially similar” means marriage-like. On the topic of domestic partner benefits, Smith said it’s up to a company to decide what health benefits to provide.

“That’s the company’s decision. That right to health care benefits comes from being an employee of the company,” Smith said. “The right does not arise from marriage. I wouldn’t say that’s substantially similar.”

“It’s not appropriate,” Henegar said of the amendment. “That’s not how we do things in Indiana. We don’t put the rights of our neighbors up for a show of hands. What we do is identify rights, and we protect them.”

Smith said Hoosiers should have a chance to vote on the amendment. If lawmakers pass the same wording of the amendment as the General Assembly did in 2011, the measure will go on the November ballot.

“I think it’s the time for the people to have a chance to put the debate to rest — one way or another,” Smith said.

As of Monday evening, the House Judiciary Committee had yet to set another meeting to vote on the proposed amendment and companion bill. If passed by the committee, the legislation would go to the full House, where House Speaker Brian Bosma has said he wants to see a floor vote on the amendment.

Deanne Medsker, of Indianapolis, attended the debate as a volunteer of Freedom Indiana, a coalition formed against the proposed amendment.

“I think an amendment to the constitution would actually harm families and send the wrong message to children of same-sex partner families,” Medsker said.

Meanwhile, Ron Johnson, who attended the debate after testifying in support of the amendment as executive director of the Indiana Pastor's Alliance, said he appreciated the civil discussion.

“It’s really an example of what should be happening at universities across Indiana,” Johnson said.