INDIANAPOLIS— The House Democratic leader confirmed Friday he will draft an amendment to delete the controversial civil unions ban from the proposed marriage amendment – but whether he’ll call it for consideration is a matter of strategy.
State Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said a top consideration for House Democrats is whether to let the second sentence of the amendment that includes a ban on civil unions -- or legal statuses similar to marriage to remain in the amendment – which could help its chances at being defeated in a statewide referendum. Or House Democrats could attempt to strip out the language, a move that would require support from at least 20 House Republicans.
“Every day there’s new concerns emerging about what that second sentence does,” Pelath said. “These are tactical questions. We want the amendment to go away and if the sense is that it has a better chance of going away either legislatively or at the ballot box by letting it stay bad then that’s one approach. But there’s also sense too that at least for this session, we might have a way of getting it set aside by getting that second sentence out of there. Those are very practical legislative decisions.”
The earliest the House could choose to hear amendments to House Joint Resolution 3, the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, is Monday. If lawmakers change the wording of the amendment, the approval process would restart and require the passage of a second, separately-elected General Assembly as well. If lawmakers pass the same wording, the proposed amendment goes on the November ballot in a statewide referendum.
One member of the Southwestern Indiana delegation, state Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Mount Vernon, said she can’t support the amendment with the second sentence, which has been interpreted by one state university to place domestic partner benefits at risk.
McNamara said this week a companion bill Republican legislative leaders crafted to explain the purpose of the second sentence didn’t alleviate her concerns.
On Thursday, House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) said he doesn’t support the removal of the second sentence and argued the companion bill clears up any issues over the language.
When asked if he would allow members of his caucus to propose amendments freely, Bosma said, “I think it is abundantly clear I haven’t asked one person to do one thing on this bill other than vote their conscience.”
Senate President Pro Tem David Long(R-Fort Wayne) said Friday he will assign the resolution and companion bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee if the legislation comes over from the House.
“It should be on the floor of the House and Senate for full discussion,” Long said. “It’s an important issue and it’s one that’s drawn an amazing amount of attention both in media and statewide with Hoosiers everywhere. I think it deserves a full debate, and I expect it will.”