IBJNews

Lawmakers sideline same-sex marriage ballot until 2014

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's Republican House and Senate leaders said Thursday they will wait a year before they take up an effort to write a same-sex marriage ban into the state's constitution.

House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President Pro Tem David Long said their respective caucuses decided the issue should wait until the 2014 session.

Long, R-Fort Wayne, and Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said they still support the amendment and believe it will win approval from lawmakers and voters, but they are wary of taking on the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court rules on related cases this summer.

"It's inadvisable to even have that discussion at the moment, despite the importance of the issue, until the Supreme Court has given a red light or a green light," Bosma said.

Social conservatives in the House and Senate had pressed them to tackle the issue this year.

The first case before the Supreme Court involves California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex marriage. The second concerns a federal law that denies gay couples who legally marry the right to obtain federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples.

Gay marriage is banned by constitution in 30 states. It is currently allowed in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington— and the District of Columbia.

Indiana lawmakers approved the constitutional ban in 2011 despite arguments from opponents that it was unnecessary because state law already limits marriage to being between one man and one woman. Supporters of writing the ban into the Indiana Constitution have said a judge could approve gay marriage by overturning state law.

Under the state's constitutional amendment process, lawmakers have until next year to consider putting the marriage ban before voters. The measure must pass the Legislature again before it can be put on a ballot. The measure passed in 2011 by a vote of 70-26 in the House and 40-10 in the Senate.

Thursday's decision means supporters of gay marriage and benefits for gay couples can rest easy for a year. Indiana Equality Action President Rick Sutton thanked Bosma and Long following the announcement.

"We're pretty happy today," Sutton said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Can't Believe It!
    Won't somebody think of Mr. Gingrich? His third marriage is in grave peril!
  • Let people live...
    Many people who consider themselves "ex-gay" were actually bi-sexual, not gay. If Steve is happy with his life, that is great! By the same token, however, one should not try to prevent someone else from their own happiness. As for our Legislature, I'm relived that Indiana escapes this second level of the amendment process for at least one more year. It is incredible to me that a party that prides itself on "small government" wants to prevent people from living out their lives as they wish.
  • Equality
    Greg - Maybe you found Jesus and a modern day miracle happened, which I assume is what you want everyone to believe, but your comments are damaging to many young kids dealing with homosexuality. You make it sound as if one can magically be transformed, but we both know you still have the same old feelings/emotions you've always had, you've just learned how to suppress those feelings to accommodate and conform to what your church and some in society want you to be. If you are happy, great, but you should be wary of using your situation as a false beacon of hope for others.
  • please
    that's a total load of bovine excrement and you know it. there is no such thing as a 'ex gay.'
  • Gay no more
    I used to be gay, but over SEVEN years ago Jesus set me FREE! I am now free from the sin of homosexuality. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman according to the King James Bible (Genesis 2:24) so I am now married and my wife is pregnant by me. What's really cool is that now my life is not focused on "ME" I actually think about other's. More to the point, it's not about "ME" at all it's ALL about JESUS CHRIST! Jesus is Lord!!

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    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
    ADVERTISEMENT

    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 can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

    2. If you only knew....

    3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

    4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

    5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

    ADVERTISEMENT