M
mick75
Guest
Overflow Crowd Packs Indiana Statehouse to Oppose Gay 'Marriage'
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - More than 1,000 people packed the Statehouse Tuesday to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
Enlarge this Image
(Photo: AP / Darron Cummings)
People crowd into the Statehouse, Tuesday, March 27, 2007, for a rally held to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. The group Advance America organized the rally.
The conservative group Advance America organized the rally, which drew a crowd so large that many watched speeches from the upper levels of the Statehouse. Advance America founder Eric Miller urged lawmakers to repeal property taxes and support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"It's not a Republican or Democrat issue," he said. "It's right versus wrong."
Amending Indiana's constitution requires a resolution to pass consecutive, separately elected General Assemblies and then be approved in a statewide vote. The Legislature passed the proposal in 2005, so if it is approved this year or in 2008, it could appear on the November 2008 ballot.
Republican Rep. Jackie Walorski urged House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, to allow a vote on the resolution so that the decision will be left up to voters.
"Mr. Speaker, we want to vote on this issue," the Lakeville lawmaker told the crowd.
The House Rules Committee has heard from both supporters and opponents about the proposed resolution but has not taken a vote. Committee Chairman Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said Tuesday that he has not scheduled a meeting to vote on the matter.
Among the committee's options are voting on the amendment without changes, or voting first to remove a provision that critics say could have unintended consequences. Proponents have said that if any of the language is changed, it would restart the lengthy amendment process. Pelath has said it may be possible to remove a part of the proposed amendment and still have another part continue on course, but said the question needed more analysis.
The proposed amendment has two sections. The first states that marriage in Indiana is the union of one man and one woman. The second provision includes a phrase that says state law "may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Some opponents say the second provision is vague and could be used to nullify domestic violence laws that apply to married and unmarried couples. They also fear it could eliminate domestic partner benefits offered by some companies, universities and other employers.
"The architects of the Marriage Discrimination Amendment have no choice but to address the challenges posed by the amendment's vague language, particularly the troublesome second line," said Jon Keep, president of Indiana Equality.
Supporters of the amendment say the second provision simply means courts cannot force the government to provide same-sex benefits. They say it does not prohibit the government, public employers or anyone else from voluntarily offering such benefits.
Resolution sponsor Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Monticello, told those at the rally that opponents have tried to muddy the waters by saying the second part of the amendment is vague or hard to understand.
"They're wrong," Hershman said.
Overflow Crowd Packs Indiana Statehouse to Oppose Gay 'Marriage'