By Tony Cook and Barb Berggoetz

tony.cook@indystar.com

In an atmosphere of rapidly shifting opinions on gay marriage, nearly two dozen Indiana House Republicans bucked their leadership to strip a same-sex marriage ban of the clause opponents find most objectionable.

The House voted 52-43 to remove the proposed constitutional amendment's second sentence, which would have banned civil unions and similar arrangements. That leaves only the first sentence, which would still ban gay marriages.

If the altered version is adopted by both chambers of the General Assembly, the measure would not go to voters this November as supporters — including Gov. Mike Pence — would like. The full House is expected to vote Tuesday on the altered resolution, which might not make it to voters until 2016.

MORE COVERAGE: Reaction to changes in HJR-3 | How Indiana House members voted on HJR-3 amendment | Lawmaker's role in advancing HJR-3 leaves gay son 'terribly disappointed'

Opponents saw pulling the second sentence as an important victory in a state where lawmakers voted overwhelmingly in favor of the resolution in 2011, the first step in a long process to amend the state constitution. More than 100 gathered on the fourth floor of the Statehouse after the vote, cheering and yelling loudly, hugging and high-fiving each other.

"Obviously, this is a great night for our campaign, and we're extremely excited to have the second sentence taken out," said Megan Robertson, campaign director for Freedom Indiana, a coalition working against the amendment.

But, she added: "Getting rid of one bad sentence doesn't fix the whole bill."

Opponents of the measure acknowledge they still have a fierce uphill battle ahead of them. The odds of defeating what's left of the amendment remain long, and they still face the prospect of the Senate reinstating the ban on civil unions in a renewed effort to send the issue to voters in November.

Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany, who was the only Republican to vote against the measure in 2011, said the vote to take out the second sentence was "a little stronger than I expected."

"It's the first real hard evidence of the shift that's been taking place," he said.

Indeed, backers of the amendment see Indiana as ground zero in the fight to turn back a tide of judicial opinions and votes to legalize gay marriage.

"Obviously I'm just incredibly disappointed on a variety of fronts," said the Rev. Ron Johnson, executive director of the Indiana Pastors Alliance. "First of all, you elect people who say they share your values, but when they get down to the Statehouse they then have political amnesia. I'm amazed at how many people have flopped in their commitment to marriage."

Indiana already bans same-sex marriage in state law, but supporters want to enshrine the ban in the constitution, making it more difficult to undo.

Monday's vote highlights the fast-changing nature of opinions on such bans, said Robert Dion, chairman of the political science department at the University of Evansville.

"For the moment, it looks like there's been a sea change in the Republican caucus," he said. "This could not have happened if a sizable number of Republican lawmakers didn't switch sides."

Even opponents of the amendment couldn't believe the outcome.

"Six months ago, this seemed next to impossible," said Freedom Indiana volunteer Sully Hussain, 25, Indianapolis.

He attributed the success to a grass-roots effort that included thousands of emails and letters, hundreds of phone calls and an intense social media campaign.

The change of heart among some rank-and-file Republicans stands in contrast to the party's state leaders.

In recent weeks, the governor, a Republican, has used several high-profile appearances to reiterate his support of traditional marriage and to press lawmakers to resolve the debate this year.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, went so far as to remove the measure from a committee where it seemed doomed to fail and reassign it to a more favorable committee.

Although 23 House Republicans joined Democrats to change the amendment, Bosma said he doesn't see the vote as a defeat.

"Actually, I see it as a successful working of the democratic process, even if I don't agree with the result," he said. "My two goals were, first of all, that every member vote their conscience. And, that the entire body gets to work on the bill together and that's exactly what happened."

The changes made Monday will likely make it easier for the measure to pass the House on Tuesday. From there, the altered version will go to the Senate.

Senate President Pro Tempore David Long said last week that his chamber would honor the version it receives from the House. But once it reaches the full Senate floor, "it's open to amendment, so a reverse could happen," he said, suggesting that perhaps the second sentence could be re-inserted.

The change adopted by the House was proposed by Rep. Randy Truitt, a West Lafayette Republican. Those who voted to change the amendment included some Republicans who, like Truitt, voted for it in 2011.

One of those Republicans, Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, said he voted for the measure in 2011 without any concerns. But since then, many constituents have approached him to express concerns that the second sentence is too onerous, he said.

"You can be safe or you can be brave," he told his colleagues before voting in favor of the amendment.

Democrats say Republicans are in a bind for several reasons. They're torn between two traditional bases of support: the business community and social conservatives. They also fear growing opposition to gay marriage bans could hurt them in future elections.

"The governor made it clear he didn't want the amendment on the ballot in 2016," said Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary. "So, now, what do they do? They are between a rock and a hard place. They are killing themselves even nationally with this whole issue. Why would they continue to pursue this when most of the folks who were opposed to this are their friends – big business (and) the (Indy) chamber."

Some Republicans, however, said the change to the amendment resolved, rather than exacerbated, any dilemma they face.

"I have long been concerned over that second sentence since I voted for it in 2011," said Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Evansville. "That was my hesitation. I'm happy to support taking it out and will support the measure now as we go forward. My constituents kept saying they wanted to vote on marriage between one man and one woman. They never said the second sentence."

But she added, "If the Senate puts it back in, I won't support it. I suspect that won't happen, but you never know."

Star reporters Robert King, Jon Murray and Stephanie Wang contributed to this story. Call Star reporter Tony Cook at (317) 444-6081. Follow him on Twitter @indystartony.