Committee votes 8-4 to send HJR-3 to full Senate

Local black ministers, state and national family and conservative groups, a Catholic leader and a former lesbian all had their chance Monday to sway senators to vote for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Parents of gays and lesbians, university and business leaders, and an Air Force sergeant urged them to reject it.

After three hours of testimony and less than five minutes of discussion, an Indiana Senate committee voted along party-lines for the constitutional ban.

The Senate Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee voted 8-4 to send House Joint Resolution 3 to the full Senate. The vote — with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats against — sets up what will likely be a showdown on the Senate floor over whether to add back a provision that would also prohibit civil unions.

“It is now to the floor, as I hoped it would be, unamended, so the entire Senate will get an opportunity to debate this and we’ll have a robust discussion,” said Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne.

Long said he expects the Senate will consider any potential changes to the constitutional amendment on Thursday, but the caucus could need more time. A final Senate vote on the measure could come as early as Monday.

Monday’s decision came with no discussion by committee members about whether to restore the amendment’s second sentence, which would also ban civil unions and similar arrangements. The House removed that provision before sending the amendment to the Senate.

Before the vote, Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, was the only committee member to speak. He said the amendment will most certainly be challenged in court and federal courts are finding there is no rational basis for upholding this type of discrimination against a group of individuals.

“HJR-3 is an idea whose time has come and gone,” he said. “Do we allow this proposal of the past to have a long lingering death or do we put it out of its misery at this time?”

Supporters of HJR-3 had a more visible presence in the Statehouse hallways than during past hearings, thanks in large part to a contingent of some 35 black ministers and about 50 church members who gathered, with the help of Eric Miller, founder of Advance America, a conservative group pushing the amendment.

The Rev. Wayne Harris of Christian Tabernacle Church in Evansville, who said his daughter has “experienced” the gay lifestyle, testified that the Bible always condemns same-sex behavior.

“The Bible binds me; therefore, since the Bible does not support same-sex partnerships, neither can I,” he said. “The shame of this matter is not to those who oppose this lifestyle, but the shame belongs to those who live it and those who support it.”

Several family values groups also testified in favor of the amendment.

“Marriage is not just about the desires of adults, but the needs of children. Children need a mother and a father,” said Peter Sprigg, a fellow with the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council. “Those are the only reasons marriage is a public, not merely a private, institution.”

On the other side of the issue, several parents of gay and lesbian children spoke out against HJR-3.

Betty Lynch, a Lawrence Township mother, said when her gay son came out, it gave her an “ache in her stomach.” She recalled feeling “uneasy” when seeing him and a boyfriend put their arms around each other. But over time, she came to accept it, she said, and she asked lawmakers to do the same.

“Give him the respect he deserves,” she said. “I want him to have the right to get married if he so chooses.”

After the vote, more than 100 amendment opponents rallied on the fourth floor to make plans for the next vote on the Senate floor.

“We’re not going to quit working,” said Rick Sutton, board president of Freedom Indiana, a coalition working to defeat the amendment, who said they will be ready for floor action on Thursday.

Does he think they have any chance of defeating it in the Senate, where it passed by a 40-10 vote in 2011 with the second sentence in it?

“In 2011, there was one House Republican against it,” he said. “In 2014, there were 23 (against the second sentence), so watch us.”

The House passed HJR-3 by a 57-40 vote nearly two weeks ago, but first deleted the second sentence to make it more palatable to some Republicans who were bucking the House GOP leadership’s support of the measure.

So far this year, several Senate Republicans have objected to the second sentence, but only one, Sen. Ron Alting, Lafayette, has publicly said he plans to switch his vote to "no."

In Indiana, constitutional amendments need to be passed, in the same form, by two separately elected legislatures before they can be voted on by the public.

If the Senate passes the House version, then the 2015 legislature would need to pass it again before it could go to voters in November 2016.

But if the Senate restores the second sentence, then the proposal would go back to the House, where the bill sponsor could concur. Or, it could be sent to a conference committee of House and Senate members to try to come to an agreement, which would then go back to each chamber for final approval.

If the second sentence is restored, the issue could go to voters in November. That’s what supporters — including Gov. Mike Pence — have said they want.

Call Star reporter Tony Cook at (317) 444-6081. Follow him on Twitter: @indystartony.

How they voted

The Indiana Senate Rules Commitee voted 8-4 for HJR-3, with all Republicans voting for the measure and all Democrats voting against.

Voting yes: David Long, Thomas Wyss, Ed Charbonneau, Doug Eckerty, Brandt Hershman, Dennis Kruse, James Merritt, Brent Steele

Voting no: Tim Lanane, Jim Arnold, Jean Breaux, Lindel Hume