Indiana gay marriage ban backers seek youth support

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A new group of young people who support banning gay marriage in Indiana announced a campaign Tuesday to pressure lawmakers to restore language to the proposed constitutional amendment that would enable it to get to voters in November.

Members of the group gathered at the Statehouse for a news conference, saying they want to rebut the notion being pushed by ban opponents, including Freedom Indiana, that younger generations are largely supportive of gay marriage.

"The media claims we don't exist, Freedom Indiana claims there are none of us left. But as young Hoosiers we are here today. We stand to send a clear message that we uphold the truth of marriage," group spokesman Shane Weist, a former Lafayette City Council candidate, said while surrounded by four to five dozen other members.

The original proposed amendment also included a ban on civil unions, but that language was recently removed by House members amid concerns that it went too far. Supporters are now lobbying hard for the Senate to restore the language because a proposed amendment must twice be approved by the Legislature, in consecutive legislative sessions and without changes, in order to make the ballot.

The measure sailed through the House and Senate during the 2011-2012 session, unaltered and with bipartisan support. But the apparent turnabout during the current 2013-2014 session has been helped by a strong, coordinated effort led by Freedom Indiana, an umbrella group of those opposing a gay-marriage ban.

Supporters of the ban are looking to reclaim some momentum this week. The proposed ban could come up for debate in the Senate as soon as Thursday, which will determine whether the "second sentence" ban on civil unions is restored and the measure placed on track for a November referendum. That language could also potentially bar employers from providing benefits to same-sex couples.

Republican Gov. Mike Pence said again Tuesday that he would stay out of the debate while lawmakers are in session.


  • Get Over It
    Time to move on Indiana from trying to add this ban on same sex marriage to our constitution. Times are changing. Equal rights will prevail eventually. Lets put our energy into solving issues that really do affect everyone, like better education, smarter development, cleaner energy, more affordable healthcare, etc. This issue only impacts the homosexuals that want to have the same rights as heterosexuals, and this impact is a positive one and I find it amazing they even have to fight for this right in this country. The sanctity of marriage argument is crap. The only people that can hurt the sanctity of your marriage are the two people that are married.......period. If you let outside forces do harm to your marriage.....you are playing the victim. Get Over It.
  • Slavery
    Slavery was once legal in the country and many justified it because it states in the bible that slaves were not a sin. However, certain states and the federal government felt this was wrong and corrected that. This discrimination too will be corrected by the states and the federal government because any type of discrimination is wrong. As a Christian I tend to follow the command that I should love my neighbor and that includes anyone that is gay and that all will be forgiven in the eyes of the Lord.
  • Sad
    Many of these youth were African American. For them to oppose equality in any form is just sad...and also makes them less credible. A joke even. And Rick -- you can't cherry pick. Why don't you tell us what the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution says.
  • Not decided by us
    All this going back and forth will soon be decided not by us the voters, but the Supreme Court. Yes, we will get to vote on this for the Constitution, but once the Supreme Court rules on this it will be a mute point because I feel that the SCOTUS will strike down any state law that bans gay marriage after all the suits are brought before it. At that point it won't matter if you are for it or against it, it will be rule of law as interpreted by the SCOTUS.
  • Rick
    Rick how does gay marriage affect your right to your religious freedom. Growing up Jewish I was told in school that if I did not believe in Jesus I should just not sing those words in certain songs. So I say to you sir if you do not believe in same sex marraige don't marry someone of the same sex. Other than isolated cases where private businesses want to use their religious objections to not provide services there are no consequences to allowing same sex marriages. There are numerous consequences for taxes to spousal rights that are affected by the discriminatory law. For those that want to open up a public business like a florist but want to use religion to only serve certain people how is that different than country clubs not allowing Jews or the disgusting racism that endured in our nation after slavery was abolished. We know that was wrong but this is right??? As for marriage and kids, if that is the REAL reason than let's focus on the real problem divorce. If your issue is marraige is for kids then let's outlaw all divorce where there are kids under 18. Put it in the constitution. There are alot more divorces than gay couples.
  • Freedom of religion
    Rick, what about the other religions? Should their beliefs be forced on all citizens by an Indiana constitutional amendment? I'm sure those in Scientology, Mormonism, Christian science all would like to put in amendments to change the behavior of Indiana citizens. From your post here you would totally support that, right? I should probably have learned by now that when someone is preaching from a standpoint of no logic, a logical argument will lose.
  • Not a vote!
    So, in '76 and '87, those writing the Constitution and those founding this country intended for our core principles to be discriminatory, filled with hate, and based on a narrow, religious view of society?
  • Joe....
    There are problems with the logic in your argument. First, this resolution is not being promulgated by Congress, but by the State of IN. Second, is Amendment X of the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Third, is that, of the examples I cited, half were post-ratification. There are many, many more examples of God-inclusive language in government-produced historic documents. Again, I'll ask: if the anti-HJR3 side is so confident of a win, why are they afraid of sending it to the voters?
    • Rick......
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
    • edit
      ...who DO support HJR-3...
    • Religion or Law
      Finish these sentences for me: 1) We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their __________... 2) One nation, under ______... (realize added later, but affirmed by Supreme Court) 3) We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the _________________... (last paragraph of Declaration). 4) And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of _______. (A. Lincoln, Emancipation Proclamation) 5.) And Whereas it hath pleased the ___________ to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, Know Ye... (Articles of Confederation) *** Put simply, since the earliest days of this country, our Founders, leaders, representatives, etc... have consistently invoked God in the debate. Our constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Please provide some debate that does not center on calling those of us who support HJR-3 bigots and cowards. We simply have a fundamental difference of opinion on what should be law. Most of us (there are always a few...) harbor no hate towards people leading a different lifestyle than us. We just want to raise our children in a traditional environment. I will repeat myself here, the fact that this group now exists proves that I am right. There are plenty of young, educated, creative people who do not support HJR-3 and who want to live in Indiana.
    • Religion or Law?
      If you truly believe that marriage is a religious institution, then the state needs to get out of the equation. Marriages should only be in churches as defined by that church. If you believe that marriage should be defined by the state, then it is against the constitution to frame marriage based on a select group of religious beliefs!
    • John Smith
      You may want to live under a Theocracy, but the rest of us don't.
    • John is right
      John is actually right on this one. It is true that the current social norm is to stigmatize homosexuality and its practitioners - a social norm that has existed for thousands of years across most cultures. Just like unequal rights for women. And smoking. And religious intolerance. And slavery. And racism.
    • spitting
      John Smith, thanks for taking the time to point out that this is not simply a religious / Judeo-Christian debate. I've been on these boards for months talking about the unheard youth that are being drowned out by a loud, pro-gay marriage, vocal minority. I am so glad to see that this group has formed and is finally taking a stand. John, just because a fight is difficult, it doesn't mean it's not worth fighting. “Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” ? Winston Churchill
    • sptting in the wind, however well intentioned
      No that is preposterous. Judaism and Islam and Christianity all have clear religious prohibitions against homosexuality and so do assorted non-western nations. Does India recognize gay marriage? That's a billion people right there with darn few Christians. How about China? Ditto. No this is an aberration of a decadent western ideology of individualism and socalled freedom that has not behaved so irresponsibly since the Jacobin Terror. The reason not to support this pathetic legislative counter-action to the redefinition of marriage, is that the game is fixed and it is waste of time. The Supremes rule the country like a Sandhedrin and there is no democratic law which can be passed that will be respected in light of their socalled "equal protection" decision that has demarcated where this is all going to end up. IE with legalization of homosexual unions as a constitutional right, in spite of all context and history and wisdom against it. Just like a lot of other social engineering forced on the American people, via combination of litigation strategy, mass media gamesmanship and clever marketing, this one was financed by super-rich combines of radicals and revolutionaries who think they know better than the social organization of nearly the whole world outside the West and oh indeed the west previous to about twenty years ago when this whole homosex thing gained steam.
    • Amen Joe
      Could not have said it better myself. Joe's argument seems to be lost in the rhetoric. This is not about "protecting" marriage. This is about legalizing discrimination.
    • From the leader...
      Me and my four-to-five dozen friends are being openly discriminated against by the thousands and thousands of young people who favor same sex marriage. Nobody cares about our freedom (to hate). It's like the whole world is against my way of life, and I just don't understand how that can be. Why are people so mean to my meanness?
    • Distorted Views
      This sorry excuse for legislation isn't a protection of your version of marriage, it's a restrictive projection of your version of marriage on other families. Should gay marriage be permitted, you are still allowed to retain your rights to marriage as you believe. Should this amendment be passed, you have taken away the rights of a group of human beings. If you believe in the Christian version of marriage, more power to you, but to project that as law is to restrict religious beliefs of others. Isn't there a national law about that?

      Post a comment to this story

      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

      2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

      3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

      4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

      5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.