By Barb Berggoetz and Tony Cook

barb.berggoetz@indystar.com

Opponents of the same-sex marriage ban now face an even bigger uphill battle in the Indiana Senate, after the amended version of the constitutional ban passed the House by a 57-40 vote on Tuesday.

Passage of the revised amendment was expected in the House following Monday’s vote to eliminate the amendment’s second sentence, which also banned civil unions.

The change made House Joint Resolution 3 more palatable for some wavering House Republicans. But the change is likely to face a more critical eye in the Senate, where efforts to re-insert the second sentence are likely to emerge.

In 2011, the amendment — including the civil unions ban — passed the Senate by a 40-10 margin. No Republicans voted against it. Since then, the body has changed only slightly. Three new Republicans and one new Democrat started their terms in 2012.

Now, the Senate has 37 Republicans and 13 Democrats. Recently, a couple Republicans have voiced reservations about the amendment. But, unlike in the House, none has openly said they are against it.

Supporters of the amendment began lobbying senators immediately following the House vote. They want the second sentence re-inserted.

“Retaining the second sentence makes the first sentence much more likely to survive a legal challenge,” said Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute, a group that supports the ban.

Megan Robertson, campaign director of Freedom Indiana, said the coalition will work to keep the second sentence from emerging again and continue to get constituents to contact their senators to urge them to get rid of the entire amendment.

“It’s the same game-plan, just a different chamber,” she said.

Revising Indiana’s constitution is a long, multi-step process.

If the Senate approves the House version of the resolution, a statewide referendum on the gay marriage ban likely would be delayed until 2016, because a new General Assembly probably would have to approve it again next year.

Supporters of the ban, including Gov. Mike Pence, wanted it on the ballot this November. That could still happen if the Senate restores the second sentence and the House goes along with the change.

The General Assembly passed the amendment, including the civil union ban, in 2011. State law is generally interpreted to require the approval of an identical amendment by separately elected General Assembly before the issue can be put on the statewide ballot for a final decision by the public.

Some, though, have argued the altered version of the ban may still be able to go to a referendum this November.

“Without any case law directly on point, differences of legal opinions undoubtedly will result among private outside lawyers advocating for certain positions,” said Bryan Corbin, press secretary for Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

He said the attorney general will be prepared to “defend the legal authority and decisions” of the legislature.

During Tuesday’s debate on the House floor, House Minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said alterations to the amendment “have not dismantled this bomb, we simply have placed a longer fuse on it before it detonates in our faces.”

Despite what proponents have said, he argued that the ban will hurt businesses, citing testimony from Eli Lilly and Co. and Cummins Inc.

But a sponsor of the bill, Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, stressed that many states that have top-rated business climates and job growth rates also have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. He also argued the ban is needed to protect the state from judges who may overturn Indiana’s existing statute against same-sex marriage.

“We know states without constitutional protection run the risk of state courts changing the will of the people,” said Turner, adding seven states already have had their statutes overturned.

Rep. Matthew Piece, D-Bloomington, argued the constitution is intended for defending the rights of minorities and this amendment would do the opposite. He said a referendum in Germany in 1930 on whether Jews should have equal rights likely would not have passed.

“We shirk our responsibility when we say, let’s just let the people decide,” Pierce said. “We don’t want to be a conveyor belt of constitutional amendments just to move them along.”

At times, the debate was extremely personal. Several lawmakers drew upon their religious beliefs and even questioned beliefs of fellow legislators.

Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland, argued Hoosiers should be given the opportunity to exercise their beliefs at the ballot box.

“Somebody said to me, ‘You know, Burton, part of your problem is you let your faith get in the way.’ I said, ‘I certainly hope so.’ I’m not ashamed of it and I’m not going to back away,’ ” he said.

“Where do we say it’s time to draw a line in the sand and say look, these people want to live a lifestyle, this is their right,” he said. “It’s not my job to judge them. My faith tells me that somebody else higher is going to judge me.”

At one point, Rep. Shelli VanDenburgh, D-Crown Point, asked the HJR3’s author, Rep. Turner, point-blank: “Is that because in the Bible it says marriage is of one man and one woman that you feel so strongly?”

Turner replied, simply: “I feel marriage is one man and one woman.”

Vandenburgh then said: “We all interpret the Bible differently. There are many things in the Bible that we should not be doing. We’re all sinners. Every single one of us in this room is a sinner.

“There are many things in the Bible we can agree on,” she said. “But I know this: We are not to judge.”

Call Star reporter Barb Berggoetz at (317) 444-6294. Follow her on Twitter @barbberg.

What’s next for HJR-3

-- The House version now goes to the Senate, where a hearing before that chamber’s Judiciary Committee will be scheduled, probably not until the week of Feb. 10.

-- If the measure clears committee, it would go to the Senate floor for possible amendments and a final vote.

-- If the final Senate version differs from House version — if the Senate, for example, restores the second sentence banning civil unions — House author Eric Turner could concur with the changes and send it immediately to the House floor for another vote. Or he could disagree with the changes and send it to a House-Senate conference committee to work out differences.

-- Any compromise reached by a conference committee would have to go back to the House and Senate for final votes.