POLL: Indiana Voters Reject Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment

4014262897_8d231ba8d7As Indiana Republicans say they’ll move forward with plans to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, a new poll shows that a majority of Indiana voters are against such a negative move.

From the Indianapolis Star:

The poll, taken for the Bowen Center for Public Affairs at Ball State
University and WISH-TV, found that 54 percent of those surveyed oppose
changing the state constitution to bar gay couples from marrying, while
38 percent support doing so.

The Indiana House and Senate voted in 2011 for a proposed amendment that
not only bans same-sex marriage but also prohibits civil unions or
anything else that is similar to marriage. It must vote to approve the
identical language again in either the 2013 or 2014 legislative sessions
in order for voters to make their decision in the 2014 general

That’s a lot of time for a Supreme Court decision or grassroots activism to convince Indiana lawmakers looking championing the discriminatory amendment that they’re on the wrong side of history.


  1. Chitown Kev says


    Damn, you beat me to it.

    Although I have to say that this doesn’t mean that a majority of Indiana voters favor marriage equality but that they would reject an amendment to their Constitution limiting marriage to one man/one woman…those are 2 different things.

  2. Mary says

    This is great news – and another reason why having the SCOTUS rule that SSM is a constitutional right isn’t a good idea. States like Indiana are just the kind of center-right states that will ultimately decide the SSM issue. The voters there may not be ready to treat gay couples as equals, but they may just need some more time to accept the idea and they want to keep their options open now. Once states like Indiana go liberal then it really IS over. And groups like NOM will have to concede defeat.

  3. Caliban says

    So in other words Indiana Republicans are moving forward with plans to ban SSM despite the fact that the majority of the public doesn’t support it.

    See, that’s why it’s such BS when gay Republicans or others say they’re not “one issue voters” and that’s why they’re voting for Romney or some other GOP politician while claiming they support gay rights. Republicans may not run as anti-gay candidates and promise the only thing they’re really interested in is making the trains run on time, but just as SOON as they get in office they pursue their religious/social agenda. Like the scorpion that stings the frog, dooming them both, that’s their nature.

    And religious ideologues can’t be “convinced” of anything, so good luck with changing their minds about this vote.

  4. Randyowen says

    @ Mary: Really, are you serious? DO you not understand what this entire fight is about? It is NOT about getting everyone to accept us, it IS about getting everyone to accept that the constitution applies to everyone. We are not trying to enshrine SSM into the constitution but that all people are created equal and should have the same rights and responsibilities as all people. I don’t give a damn if everyone goes liberal, or everyone in the nation wakes up tomorrow and breaks into a sing along of Judy Garland melodies and screaming that Gays are OK. The Far-Right has the right to have their stupid opinions, and i would not have it any other way, they don’t have the right to force their religious views on the rest of us. This is why we need the highest court in the land to do what they are designed to do and provide a check on the Legislative and executive side for the government to the protection of ALL citizens.

  5. Stefan says

    This is in line with Nate Silver’s analysis (which correctly predicted the MN amendment would fail) that the amendment in Indiana would fail in 2012 as well. Keep in mind though that the one in Indiana would ban marriage AND civil unions. If it just banned marriage it would pass.

  6. anon says

    A lot of politics is about appearing to care about something. Getting a chance to vote on an amendment that won’t pass will still put many Republicans in good stead with evangelicals.

  7. reality says

    Welcoming news. I grew up in Indianapolis and all of my family still lives in Indiana – – they are 100% against the amendment and 100% in support of equal marriage, like most people in Indianapolis. It’s hard to convince the farmlands of Indiana, though … (there’s literally a place called Farmland, Indiana)

  8. says

    @Mary: Once again, you don’t understand the cases before the Supreme Court. The SC could rule broadly and say that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, but the decision is more likely to be much narrower in scope. A ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional will not have the dire consequences you claim to fear. When you have the Constitution on your side, you don’t wait, you make your case and win.

    And no one is suggesting that adding more states to the equality column isn’t a good idea, but state equality does not address the lack of federal benefits, and that must be addressed long before there is a majority of states on board. Groups like NOM are already defeated; they’re dinosaurs on the brink of extinction. Stop claiming that these cases are some sort of reckless activist plot, when they are nothing of the kind. If you don’t want to be called a troll, quit giving trollish “advice.”

  9. ***** says

    @Mary How is it “not a good idea” to have the Supreme Court of the United States declare that “equal protection under the law” applies to the gay citizens of the United States as well as the heterosexual ones? That equal protection has been promised for more than 144 years should indicate that enough time has passed for the people of Indiana to get with the program. If the voters of Indiana are stupid enough to set their taxpayers up for expensive court battles by voting to violate the constitutional rights of some of their citizens, as did the ignorant voters of California, then the Supreme Court of the United States needs to do its job and provide equal protection under the law to ALL citizens and fulfill the promise of “liberty and justice for all”.

  10. Mary says

    Ernie, I never said there was any “plot.” It is only natural for people who feel their rights have been violated to want a court to grant them these rights formally. And yes, you’re right. Overturning DOMA is not likely to have dire consequences. But the SCOTUS ruling that gays have a constitutional right to marry has consequences that right now are unpredictable. If you’re going to call me a troll for suggesting that we use the state by state approach (even if that allows some federal injustices to go unaddressed for a while) then you ‘ll have to accuse Jonathan Rauch of being a troll also. I believe The New Republic just posted an article of his about why the SCOTUS should “stay out of” the gay marriage issue. I’d love to see a discussion between you and Rauch! I was hoping that Andy would post an entry about Rauch’s piece in New Republic and then we could discuss it here.

  11. Billy Wingartenson says

    I’m reminded of NH when after the marriage bill was passed the tea party repubs took over the state govt except for the governnorship. They had a 2 to 1 majority in the state houses , enough to overide the govs expected veto

    The anti marriage bill was defeated 2 to 1, with over half the repubs voting with most dems to trash this segregation type of discrimination.

    But the extremists are all freaked out of the past election in NOV. they will try everything they can to wreck equal marriage rights.

    Anything can happen but it looks like Aerica is ont he same track.

    BTW in England, a catholic bishop called equal marriage a Perversion of the institution.

    so conveniently forgetting that his church is now known as the “church of the endless molestation of children by its sex starved priests.

    And the hierarchy up to the top hid these vile crimes.



  12. says

    Mary, you are the Queen B of trolls. You pass all this advice that all seem to center around gays taking a back seat and being patient. Up until a few months ago, you were a proud homophobe. I hope you are old enough to die already. You sound like an old bag, so here’s to hoping

  13. says

    @Mary, we are using the state by state approach. Where do you think the 9 equality states come from? And we will continue to. But, no, we’re not going to wait till we’re all dead to address the federal questions when the laws that prevent gay couples from receiving federal benefits are unconstitutional now and when carefully crafted cases have reached the SC. Step away from the Rauch. He’s been an apologist for homophobes for years. One more time: the “consequences” of equality that inexplicably frighten you so much are nothing compared to the consequences of allowing unconstitutional laws to stand.

Leave A Reply