Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Indiana House amends marriage ban bill

Timothy Kincaid

January 27th, 2014

The Indiana House of Representatives has voted to amend the anti-gay marriage ban to remove the second sentence:

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 vote to amend passed by a healthy majority, 52 to 43.

The House has not yet voted on the bill itself. But if it does pass both the House and Senate as amended, it cannot go before the voters until the next legislative session passes identical language. This means that the bill cannot go before voters on the November ballot.

UPDATE: 23 of the state’s 69 Republican reps and 29 of 31 Democratic reps voted to strip the second sentence.



Mark F.
January 27th, 2014 | LINK

Well, a smart move for the Republicans. There was a better than fair chance the voters would reject the Amendment in its current form. They can now vote for the Amendment knowing that it won’t come before the voters for another 2 years. But by that time, it still may fail, assuming no big SCOTUS decision makes it moot.

January 27th, 2014 | LINK

2 more years is a long time with this issue. If NOM et al. can’t get this through Indiana, I dont think they will last in their current form. I would formally predict they fold or get folded up into some other larger group.

January 27th, 2014 | LINK

I thought that the “marriage-only” ban was what they were originally pushing in the first place- maybe I’m wrong.

bill johnson
January 27th, 2014 | LINK

Markanthony, I think you’re right. Indiana was going to NOM “victory” of the year, if they can’t get it passed then their relevance is really in question.

I would also note that during this critical time for the proposed amendment Brian Brown isn’t even in Indiana but rather is out in Utah for a rally that is frankly pointless. Why should donors even bother giving money to NOM when NOM’s leader is attending a meaningless rally in a state where the matter is in federal courts instead of being on the ground in a state where the issue could go to the ballot? If there is no role for Brian Brown to play in Indiana then there is no reason for NOM to exist.

January 27th, 2014 | LINK

Matt: You were wrong.

Sir Andrew
January 27th, 2014 | LINK

@Matt: There was more to the amendment. It forbade anything that looked like a marriage that was between other than a man/woman. It also banned the legislature or people from approving civil unions ever in the future (which would have killed this amendment in the Supreme Court anyway).

This is the start of the last gasps of the anti-marriage equality forces. Even NOM has recognized this and has now broadened their mandate to include ALL pro-gay bills of any sort. They are linking with other groups that share the goal of forcing all of us back into our closets even as all of our rights are reversed. As Bugs would say, “What a bunch of maroons.”

January 28th, 2014 | LINK

@ Sir Andrew: Since we’re on the subject of ridiculing NOM (well, at least I am):

Albert Pujols, the Dominican-born MLB pitcher and a devout Christian, …

Eli Manning, (who hardly needs an introduction as to his professional talents), …

(Italics mine.) Pujols was the best baseball player of the ’00s; he’s the one who needs no introduction, and certainly not one calling him a pitcher (he’s a first-baseman/designated hitter–the very opposite of a pitcher). Manning, on the other hand, has never ever been the best quarterback (much less the best football player) for even a single season.

Stay hip, NOM!

January 28th, 2014 | LINK

@SirAnthony/occono- glad to be wrong in this instance. Oddly enough I lived in Indiana from 1998-2007, and the same people in the state legislature spent all that time trying to push through the same amendment on an “on again, off again” basis. They’d pass it one year, fail to pass it the next year, let it lapse for a bit, bring it back, etc., so I guess it’s easy to lose track after all that time.

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.