Experts, public give passionate, conflicting testimony on gay marriage amendment

After nearly four hours of conflicting expert and public testimony on the amendment, known as House Joint Resolution 3, supporters and opponents agreed they were shocked when committee chairman, state Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, ended the meeting without an up or down vote on the amendment or its explanatory companion legislation, House Bill 1153.

Steuerwald said committee members told him they wanted time to reflect on what they'd heard. He did not say when the committee might vote, if ever.

"We had a lot of great testimony today, very involved and detailed testimony, and I fully understand -- I'd like to digest it myself a little bit more," Steuerwald said. "I'm going to give the committee members the respect and consideration they deserve; then I'll make a decision whether or not to reconvene from the recess."

Postponing the committee vote all but guarantees the marriage amendment, which many House Republicans privately have said they'd like to see quickly dealt with early in the legislative session, continues to dominate.

Megan Robertson, the Portage native leading Freedom Indiana, a business-backed group opposing the amendment, said her organization will use the vote delay to keep making hundreds of daily phone calls urging Hoosiers to contact their lawmakers and explain why they're against the amendment.

"Bottom line is, we're not going anywhere until HJR-3 is gone," Robertson said.

At least four of the nine GOP committee members are thought to be possible "no" votes -- state Reps. Casey Cox, R-Fort Wayne; Dan Leonard, R-Huntington; Wendy McNamara, R-Mount Vernon; and Jerry Torr, R-Carmel.

If three vote no, along with the four committee Democrats who are united in opposition, the amendment will not advance out of committee.

The amendment adds the state's existing ban on gay marriage to the Indiana Constitution and also declares, "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

Amendment opponents passionately detailed for the committee a bevy of economic, legal and personal reasons why Indiana should not put the marriage amendment in the state's fundamental governing document.

Leaders of Indiana University; Indianapolis drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co.; Cummins Inc., the Columbus engine manufacturer; and the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce said businesses want to continue offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees and expect the second sentence of the amendment will make that impossible.

In addition, they fear Hoosier companies will have difficultly recruiting the talent they need as younger workers leave Indiana or refuse to move to a state that rejects marriage equality.

State Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, the sponsor of the amendment and its companion legislation, called those fears overblown.

He said nearly all the low-tax, low-regulation states Indiana competes with for jobs and employees already have similar marriage amendments in their state constitutions with no corresponding decline in economic vitality.

Turner said the marriage amendment simply protects the Indiana marriage law from interference by a zealous judge.

Amendment's lack of clarity driving opposition

However, powerhouse Republican attorney Peter Rusthoven, an amendment opponent, said the second sentence of the amendment will lead to "full employment for lawyers" as courts try to figure out what counts as a legal status "substantially similar" to marriage.

Rusthoven said it would be better to leave those decisions to future Legislatures, rather than inserting an unclear amendment in the Constitution whose meaning ultimately will be determined by the very judges Turner wants to keep out of marriage debates.

But James Bopp Jr., another top GOP attorney and amendment supporter, said there's nothing unclear about the second sentence.

A single item, like employer health benefits for same-sex domestic partners, is nowhere near identical to the thousands of rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, so courts won't interfere with that, he said.

Most amendment supporters focused their arguments primarily on religious topics with one, a lesbian who has chosen chastity in accordance with her Catholic faith, noting that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Ron Johnson Jr., a Crown Point minister and executive director of the Indiana Pastor's Alliance, suggested that if the amendment does not pass it will inevitably lead to same-sex marriage being legalized in the state.

"We're going to open up through sexual anarchy all sorts of confusion in our country, especially with our young people," Johnson said.

State Rep. Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, pointed out that no legislation has been filed since 1986, when Indiana formally limited marriage to one man and one woman, that has sought to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

If the amendment wins approval by the Republican-controlled General Assembly, Hoosiers will vote to ratify or reject it at the Nov. 4 general election.