Indiana Senate committee passes marriage amendment

The earliest the Senate could hear changes to the proposed amendment is Thursday. At issue is whether the Senate will vote to add a civil unions ban back into the proposal after the Indiana House stripped that language.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long had said he wanted to wait to hear any changes on the proposed ban until the issue got to the full Senate floor. Long, a Fort Wayne Republican, chairs the Senate Rules and Legislature Procedure Committee where the proposed ban cleared on an 8-4 vote on Monday.

State Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, said he acknowledged that the proposed ban is a “difficult decision for a lot of people” before moving for its passage.

Prior to the vote, the committee heard more than three hours of public testimony.

Supporters of the amendment focused testimony on arguing why the Senate should restore a civil unions ban.

Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute, said an amendment that just serves to define marriage as between one man and one woman has “limited utility.” He said his organization would rather see the amendment not go on the ballot without a civil unions ban.

“It’s not enough just to define marriage in an amendment like this. You have to defend marriage,” Smith said.

Conservative lawyer Jim Bopp said a constitutional amendment that lacks a civil unions ban would leave the measure vulnerable to a court challenge. He said Indiana needs to defend the definition of marriage against “copy-cat” type versions like civil unions.

Several of the speakers defending the proposed amendment came from national organizations, such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council.

Pastors from across the state also came to speak at the Senate hearing. One of those pastors, the Rev. Wayne Harris, of Evansville’s Christian Tabernacle Church, said same-sex marriage “conflicts with biblical truths.” He said it would be “unreasonable” for supporters of the ban to stand on the side and accept same-sex relationships.

“America is a nation where citizens have rights,” Harris said. “Let me remind each of us, we don’t have the right to do the wrong thing.”

The committee also heard from several of the same testifiers against the same-sex marriage ban as the House. Representatives from Eli Lilly, Cummins and Indiana University all spoke out against the ban, saying it would hurt their ability to attract recruit top talent.

Two lesbian employees of Eli Lilly have told Stephen Fry, a senior vice president, that they would leave Indiana if the General Assembly passed the wording of the proposed ban.

“They don’t want their children to live through the public campaign that will follow,” Fry said.

Jennifer Fisher, a Fort Wayne resident who works as a recruiter, asked the committee to look at the proposed amendment through a personal lense. Fisher said as she and her partner prepare to start a family in the state, the proposed ban is “scary.”

“The true impact for me is the potential to lose everything that I love,” Fisher said.

Like Fisher, many who testified shared stories on how the amendment would affect their lives, speaking of their partners and children who are gay.

Sam Ray, of Paoli, said he and his partner were married in New York, but in Indiana, their union isn’t recognized which became a problem as Ray started undergoing cancer treatments.

“I wasn’t allowed to list him as a spouse,” Ray said. “I barely could list him as an emergency contact.”

If the Senate votes to restore the civil unions ban, then the measure would go back to the House. Then, the House could either agree to accept the Senate’s version or send the issue to a conference committee.