|
The Martinsville co-author of a proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would define marriage as a union between men and women says an overwhelming majority of his constituents support that idea.
State Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, was conducting a meeting Wednesday of the Senate Judiciary Committee when demonstrators opposing the legislation started singing, “We Shall Overcome.” Bray slapped his gavel on the Senate podium a few times, then ordered the protestors removed from the balcony.
The proposed state constitutional amendment doesn’t mean the state is hostile to gays, Bray said.
“It goes back to where marriage is a union between a man and woman,” Bray said.
The proposed amendment would keep civil unions from being recognized as marriages, Bray said. There is no provision in Indiana law for civil unions.
The amendment to the Constitution if approved would state, “Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman."
Bray said he has had “very little feedback” on the proposal. In response to a question on his Web site, however, 92 percent approved of the idea of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Bray said, “No,” when asked if this means the state is hostile to gays.
“It doesn’t change anything we’ve known as marriage in the last 200 years of the state’s history,” Bray said.
Gay and other couples not recognized by state law as married could still enter into legal contracts regarding property and other possessions that could be defined as jointly owned by the partners, Bray said. Partners may also enter into power-of-attorney agreements.
If the state House and Senate approve the resolution, the proposed amendment would be placed on the ballot. If a simple majority of voters approved, the proposal would become a part of the state Constitution.
Opponents said the second provision was vague and could be used to nullify domestic violence laws that apply to married and unmarried couples, as well as contracts that unmarried senior couples sometimes have to retain inheritances and share legal, financial and health care decisions.
That provision states, “b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that martial status or legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Walter Botich, president of a group called Stop the Amendment, said the second section would not only place restrictions on same-sex couples but those who are single.
‘’Nowhere in the second line does it say anything about same-sex couples,’’ he said. ‘’It says unmarried couples. We’re talking about anyone who isn’t married.’’
Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, legal counsel for the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said the section would make Indiana’s domestic battery laws unconstitutional because they currently cover spouses and those who are unmarried but considered ‘’live-in spouses.’’
The Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether its gay marriage amendment conflicts with that state’s domestic battery laws. The case stems from a judge’s decision to dismiss a domestic violence charge against a man who argued that it conflicted with the amendment. An appeals court later reinstated the charge and the man appealed to the state’s highest court.
Attorney James Bopp told the Indiana Senate committee that Ohio’s provision is significantly different from Indiana’s proposed amendment.
He said the Ohio amendment barred the Ohio Legislature from applying benefits of marriage on unmarried couples, but Indiana’s proposed amendment would only prohibit a court from ordering that unmarried couples receive marriage-like benefits. The General Assembly could still pass laws giving such benefits to unmarried couples, as it has done in the past, he said.
Some opponents, including Eric Kanagy of Goshen, said he moved to Indianan from Pennsylvania, started a successful business and called Indiana home - only to have the state try to turn its back on him because he is gay.
‘’Passing this resolution is the same as installing signs at the borders of this state saying right below ‘Buckle your seat belts, gays stay out,’’ he said.
But several proponents said marriage was a bedrock of society that should be protected.
‘’There are those who want to make marriage virtually meaningless,’’ said Micah Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana.
ByRonald Hawkins
The Associated Press also contributed to this article.
| 
