Tony Cook and Barb Berggoetz

The Indianapolis Star

Proposed ban now would not be able to go before voters until at least 2016

Original amendment that also included a ban on civil unions had passed state General Assembly in 2011

Gay marriage supporters are happy but say issue is not over in Indiana

INDIANAPOLIS — A proposed constitutional amendment in Indiana that would have banned same-sex marriage won't go on the ballot this year.

The Indiana Senate passed the measure, known as House Joint Resolution 3, on a 32-17 vote Monday. But because its provisions were changed before a House vote Jan. 28, the three-step process of amending ­Indiana's constitution restarts.

The vote came after the Senate declined Thursday to restore the amendment's second sentence, which also would have banned civil unions and similar arrangements. Instead, the General Assembly must approve the ban again in 2015 or 2016 before a public referendum could happen in November 2016.



Some conservatives who had fought for the constitutional ban for years weren't all that happy with its passage because it didn't include original language.

After a weekend Twitter tirade that in part blamed inactive churches for the weakened ban, Sen. Mike Delph announced at a news conference that he was voting against it because it was too watered down.

"For my faith and plain-spokenness, I make no apologies," said Delph.

Opponents were pleased it didn't include the broader ban but still saw the measure as a form of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

"We have the opportunity to make history today by putting an end to HJR-3 once and for all," Democratic Leader Tim Lanane of Anderson urged the Senate. "Time is not on the side of discrimination."

Supporters, including Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, had wanted the amendment to be passed in the same form in which it passed in 2011 so the public could vote on it this November.

Two separately elected legislatures must approve constitutional amendments with identical language before they can go to voters, and the amendment approved this year now differs from the one passed in 2011 because it does not include the ban on civil unions.

Senate President Pro Tempore David Long said he expects the General Assembly to take up the ban again next year.

"That is our intent right now," he said. "I'll have to sit down with all of our caucus and decide that, but I think right now that's our mindset."

Lobbying groups supporting the constitutional ban expressed mixed feelings about the outcome.

"We applaud this symbolic statement affirming the truth that marriage is not just any relationship, but the special union of a man and a woman," said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana.

But he said it is "disappointing the legislature decided to leave the future of marriage in the hands of judges and activists for another two years."

A 'sigh of relief'

Megan Robertson, campaign director of Freedom Indiana, a group formed to fight the amendment, said, "We can finally breathe a collective sigh of relief that lawmakers are finished with the amendment this session, and it will not appear on the ballot this November."

She characterized opponents as "underdogs" in this fight from the beginning and said everyone involved should be proud of their hard work.

"Our success reflects the strength of the incredible coalition we were able to build in just six months," she said.

Quickly shifting public opinion away from such bans and recent court opinions against them make it unclear how well a constitutional ban on gay marriage would be received a year from now.

Three years ago, only 10 senators, all Democrats, voted against the amendment. While more from each party voted against it this year, the amendment was eight votes short of being defeated.

Still, Monday's vote revealed a shift among lawmakers in the Senate. Six members who voted for the amendment in 2011 — including Delph — voted against it this time.

Current Indiana law bans gay marriage, but some conservatives also want the ban to be enshrined in the state constitution so it would be more difficult to undo.

Sen. Ron Alting, a Republican from Lafayette, Ind., who previously had announced his opposition, said he changed his mind because the constitution should grant people rights, not take them away. He said the amendment sends a "terrible message to the rest of the country about Indiana not being very tolerant. The perception is that it's just mean."

With the issue decided for this session, it's now going to be up to another legislature to consider whether to pass it again.

"It's passed (the House and Senate) four times now," said Brandt Hershman, a Republican from Buck Creek, Ind. "So I think historic evidence is it can pass the General Assembly, and I think the polls suggest that even though public opinion has changed somewhat, a clear majority of people want the opportunity to vote on the issue, either pro or con."