Some Indiana legislators want voters to decide on same-sex marriage

While the Indiana Constitution currently states that marriage is a man-and-woman status, House Joint Resolution 6 specifically defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. It refuses to recognize gay marriages or civil unions, and prohibits future legislatures from passing a law allowing same-sex marriage or allowing legal protections for unions or domestic partnerships. It calls for the change to go before voters in a statewide referendum on the November 2014 ballot.

The issue has launched a firestorm of opinions from both sides. Recently, Indiana University and the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce joined two major corporations, as Columbus-based manufacturer Cummins and Eli Lilly and Co. of Indianapolis in opposition to HJR6. Grassroots campaign Freedom Indiana has organized across the state to fight the measure.

The ban passed the Indiana House and Senate in 2011. By law, a proposed amendment to the state constitution must pass in consecutive elected legislatures without any changes to its draft. It then must go before the people in the form of a referendum, and if it were to pass by popular vote, the constitution would be amended.

Two issues exist, though. This is a new General Assembly, with a load of first-time lawmakers and fresh ideas and no promises to entertain a previous legislature’s work. And if it comes down to it, local legislators seem bent on letting the people decide this matter.

House District 52 Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, said there is no guarantee HJR6 will be introduced, as no representative has stepped up to carry the bill thus far. Smaltz said even if it is introduced, he is not sure it will make it out of a committee session without tweaks that would kill it.

That’s why Smaltz, who is finishing his first year in the General Assembly, declined to say which way he would vote on it, saying he can’t formulate an opinion until he has the document in front of him to read and available for his constituents to read. Smaltz did say he’s in favor of the matter going before voters in a referendum.

“It really is a decision for the people,” said Smaltz. “They’ll decide, for better or worse — pardon the pun — what they want, and the people of Indiana will have what they want, and that’s how it should be. We’re a self-governed state, and that’s what will happen.”

Smaltz echoed the sentiments of fellow first-year lawmaker House District 82 Rep. Dave Ober, R-Albion, who said he, too, favors passing the decision to voters. Ober, who said supports traditional marriage, said the topic is too socially important to be decided by a select group.

“I fall into that group of people that hasn’t really made a decision on the record with regard to the resolution,” said Ober, “but for me, I think that it’s important that we allow every Hoosier in the state to make a decision on this issue rather than 150 legislators. While we are elected to make decisions, whenver we can allow democratic decisions to be made, especially on issues of this importance, we should do that. I support what we will be considering as part of the process to allow every Hoosier to make that decision and allow them to decide that issue for themselves. It’s a policy decision that should not be left up to a small group of people.”

Ober said he hasn’t spoken much with his colleagues on the issue, and he has his own bills to worry about. He said he suspects most of the General Assembly favors shifting the marriage decision to the voters.

“I would guess that would probably be true, that most folks think that it’s best that they let their constituents answer that question for themselves rather than make an executive decision down here in Indianapolis,” Ober said.

Smaltz, who would not reveal his personal stance on same-sex marriage, said he has received some input from his constituents on the issue, though it is not “overwhelming” for or against.

“I care about what Hoosiers have to say,” said Smaltz. “This is about Hoosiers making the decision. It’s about us deciding what we want to do. We are going to self-determine our future.