IU Health latest to voice opposition to marriage amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana University Health on Tuesday joined a growing list of businesses and organizations proclaiming public opposition to a proposed state amendment that would reinforce Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage.

IU Health, the city's largest health care provider and the state’s fourth-largest employer with about 26,000 workers, said it was taking the position for health-related reasons.

“Research has demonstrated that unequal treatment of same-sex couples … adversely impacts their health and well-being,” IU Health said in a prepared statement. “As a leading health care provider in this state, IU Health must support efforts that reduce disparities and improve the overall health and well-being of its patients, their families and the community.”

IU Health joins Eli Lilly and Co., Cummins Inc. and Emmis Communications Corp. as major employers opposing the amendment.

Indiana University, Ball State University, Butler University, DePauw University and several other colleges also have voiced opposition.

State lawmakers will begin considering the same-sex marriage ban in January. Supporters of limiting marriage to one man and one woman say a constitutional amendment is needed to keep the courts from legalizing gay marriage in Indiana.

Lawmakers began the lengthy process of placing the ban in the constitution in 2011. The ban won overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans last time around.

If lawmakers sign off a second time on the legislation, it would be placed on the ballot for voters to consider next November.

Thirty states have constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex marriage and five others ban it by law.


  • 50 plus D.C.
    Marsha, 29 states ban SSM through their constitutions. Four states (IN, PA, WV, and WY) ban SSM by statute. That number used to be six until Hawaii and Illinois changed in the last month. Fifteen states plus D.C. recognize SSM. That leaves two states (NM & NJ) which are currently silent on the issue. Because the number of states recognizing SSM continues to increase, it can be tough for the press to keep up.
  • ??????
    If, 30 states have constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex marriage; 5 others ban it by law, 16 U.S. States now offer full marriage rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and now include Indiana--I come up with 52. Last time I checked there were only 50 States (?)
  • Ditto
    Well said, Equality!
  • Freedom and Liberty
    Sixteen U.S. States now offer full marriage rights and benefits to same-sex couples, yet in Indiana, we are still debating the idea of using the State Constitution to deny basic civil rights to our fellow citizens. It is time for GOP leaders in the Statehouse to recognize that using GLBT rights as a political tool is no longer a winning strategy (except with misguided religious fantatics that are insecure with their faith and want to use the Constitution as a tool to enforce Christian rule on everyone). State Legislators should focus time and energy on helping Indiana families, not harming them by allowing this discriminatory Amendment to move forward.

    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:
    thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

    Subscribe to IBJ