Indiana Senate committee votes for ban on marriage and civil unions

Timothy Kincaid

January 20th, 2010

The Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee has just passed SJR 0013 to be presented as a referendum to amend the state constitution:

Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

The bill passed on a 6-4 party line vote and could go for a vote to the full Senate next week. The Senate has a 33 to 17 Republican majority.

What struck me about this is that those legislators who vote for these forms of discrimination know that their behavior is shameful and that history will soundly condemn them. (WIBC)

Republicans on the panel remained silent throughout the two-hour hearing before voiting for the amendment. Democrats challenged witnesses to distinguish the ban from laws once on the books in Indiana and other states against interracial marriage.

It is possible that this bill will have difficulty in the Indiana House where similar legislation has been stuck in committee. Democrats have a 52 – 48 advantage there.

And if it does go to a vote of the populace, it is possible that a effective argument can be made that banning civil unions is just downright unfair and bigoted.

Richard W. Fitch

January 20th, 2010

You underestimate the ignorance and animus of large portions of the state. I have long held that Indiana is the most northern of the Southern states and such a referendum as this may well underscore that contention again.

Emily K

January 20th, 2010

Wow. I hope that the city of Pawnee at least comes out against it.


January 20th, 2010

This is why I root for the Jets.


January 20th, 2010

Don’t kid yourself – if that is put to the people for a vote, it will pass. Every Catholic priest in Indiana, and every pastor of every mainstream Protestant denomination will exhort their congregations to vote for it, and huge amounts of money will roll into Indiana from the Knights of Columbus, Latter Day Saints et. al. It is exactly the same wording as the Wisconsin and Kentucky constitutional amendments, and both passed with sizable majorities. This is just the NOM machine in action – they don’t call it “national” for nothin’.


January 20th, 2010

That language is such BS for any sort of law worth anything.. “substantially similar” is completely fluff and subject to any absurd interpretation.


January 20th, 2010

Ah, so great to hear from my home state! (Sarcasm)

Just when you thought them voting for Obama was progress…!

This is the state that has a free “In God We Trust” imprint on their license plate! I just don’t understand what took them so long!


January 20th, 2010

If this bullsh*t amendment is passed, does that mean the state government has to approve another amendment to its Constitution (to undo the bullsh*t one) AND have a majority of its voters approve it?

I don’t think I even want to know the answer to my question. As a gay Ohioan, I was sorely disappointed when our Constitutional amendment was passed by a solid majority in 2004. In the long run, these foolish amendments will hurt EVERYONE. I pray the members of the Indiana House realize that before it’s too late.

Lynn David

January 20th, 2010

The only block for SJR-13 would be the House committee. If the greater House should vote on it, SJR-13 would pass. SJR-13 would then it go on to be voted on again by the House and Senate after the 2010 election (has to be voted on twice by two different sessions of the legislature).

Should it then be passed again, it would go before the people for a vote. It would overwhelmingly pass. My state senator’s district alone has been polled and 90+% of voters have said they would vote for such an amendment. They don’t care what it says or about any arguments concerning civil unions, they just want to stick it to gay people.

Lindoro Almaviva

January 20th, 2010

The corn fed idiots of this state would vote for this amendment in droves. They are like lonely pets in the arms of their bigoted pastors and they lack the education to know the difference between what the law is and what is just plain bible-based manipulation.


January 21st, 2010

Indiana is solid Republican as Massachusettes is solid Democrat..oh wait…


January 21st, 2010

Sounds like they risk doing again what was done with the amendment in Texas. Over there it’s been belatedly noticed that it could be understood as banning all marriage (“The state will not recognize a status similar to marriage…). Here, the last sentence sentence would seem to mean that no-one may marry unless they are already married.


January 21st, 2010

“A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Does anybody else notice the wording of this? Does it seem a bit strange? Have you noticed that it effectively outlaws marriage for EVERYONE who is not already married? If some lawyer doesn’t catch this, then they deserve what they get.


January 21st, 2010

Oh I have already written my reps (Merritt and Day) At least Merritt (R) wrote me back to say he’ll keep my thoughts in mind, yeah right. Anyway I let him know.
As for the language “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”
Isn’t this the same language that Texas used that pretty much as the law read (not the intent) that banned all marriage?

Look at it, Identical or substantially similar to, well Marriage is Identical to Marriage, so all unmarried individuals who get married shall not be recognized.
I have to agree with the previous posts, the Hoosier state is the most Northern of the Southern states and every religious and I can say majority of the black community will be out against it. Though these same guys have brought it up every year, even during the special session when we had no budget and that was the sole purpose of bringing it up to pass a budget, this dumbarses bring it up.
Methinks they need to come out come out where ever your are (Turner/Yoder)


January 21st, 2010

I don’t know why they don’t go after every straight hetrosexual who’s been divorced and disolve their second marriage because marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Once their divorced it’s over, they’ve had their 1 man or 1 woman. These people are so effin holy and want to go by gods word, let’s force their stinkin gods word down their throat and make them suffer by it. Everything they say is a lie anyway, they don’t follow any of their crap, they find ways to get around it, the hipocrits. They’ve killed god in my eyes with their example anyway.


January 21st, 2010

Sigh. Just when I thought my former home state had moved on from this…

Lynn did a good job of describing the legislative process this would need to take so I won’t go over that again. I remember helping campaign against this with crossed fingers for several years and breathed a sigh of relief when it was finally shelved a couple years ago. But residents of Indiana should certainly NOT get comfortable. If it goes to a popular vote, I agree with other posters who say that it will pass, and I’ll even pull a Nate Silver and predict a 60-40 outcome.


January 21st, 2010

I could add that the reason for amendments that seem to ban normal marriage is the mindset of those who write them: they think of it not as an institution decided by the state, but as something transcendent that the state simply acknowledges; hence, they are safe if they can keep the state’s hands out of marriage. That mindset has to go, and taking these amendments at face value should help point out the contradiction at its core.


January 21st, 2010

Keep in mind that a constitutional amendment like this that also bans civil unions has not been passed since 2006, when Arizona voters actually rejected their amendment. In 2008 Arizona accepted an amendment that only banned marriage, not civil unions. So there is hope that this may be defeated at the ballot box.


January 21st, 2010

So, another law is being pushed through another state legislature to discriminate against gay people. And in the Prop 8 trial, defenders of Prop 8 argued that gay people don’t face discrimination. Hmmm. Is there any other group of American citizens who are currently being specifically singled out by law in order to be denied rights and priviledges accorded to others in our society?

Gregory Benedict

January 21st, 2010

The Manhattan Declaration

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

1. Read the Manhattan Declaration
2. Sign the Manhattan Declaration

God Bless,

Priya Lynn

January 21st, 2010

Sign a delcaration to deny equal rights to those who are harming no one? No thanks – you won’t get any takers on that amongst the justice oriented crowd.

Timothy Kincaid

January 21st, 2010

We have read and analyzed the Manhattan Declaration. Here is what I found

This manifesto is, I believe, less a declaration of war on gay people and those with unplanned pregnancies than it is a declaration of war on other Christian faiths.

They “are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour” to try and deny the title of “Christian” from mainline Christians and to compel non-believers to be subject to the doctrines of faith shared by Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians by force of law.

It is un-American, contrary to the teachings of Christ, and in direct opposition to the protections and freedoms afforded by the Constitution.

John Doucette

January 21st, 2010

Maybe we should start voting on heterosexual civil rights.

Ben in Oakland

January 22nd, 2010

“Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.”

yeah, as long as it is YOUR family and not MY family.

you give Christians a bad name.


January 22nd, 2010

Hey, where are the posts from Republicans claiming that they only oppose us using the word “marriage”?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.