BigGayDeal.com

Indiana Senate Prevents Voters from Considering Gay Marriage Ban Until at Least 2016

Insenate

The Indiana Senate today offered no amendments to HJR3, the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and thus the language struck by the House earlier this month was not reinserted, meaning the measure must begin its process from the beginning and will not reach voters until at least 2016.

Because the House struck language that would have banned any legal relationship that is "identical or substantially similar" to marriage is restored (and then sent back to the House and reapproved this session), the Senate would have had to reinsert the language and have the House pass it again to have it sent to voters this year. They chose not to do so.

A constitutional amendment needs to pass two separately-elected General Assemblies and then be approved by a voter majority in a public referendum before becoming part of the constitution.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Waterloo!

    Posted by: SERIOUSLY | Feb 13, 2014 2:32:58 PM


  2. The senates didnt pass the HJR3 because they want to ban ANY relationships that is similar to marriage? So the senates are more evil than the house ?

    Posted by: Andy Towlette | Feb 13, 2014 2:45:25 PM


  3. This is huge. Way to go, Indiana Senate! This amendment will never see 2016.

    Posted by: Bill | Feb 13, 2014 2:48:20 PM


  4. Waiting for NOM's reaction...
    This has been their major state effort lately.

    Posted by: woody | Feb 13, 2014 2:52:04 PM


  5. Waiting for NOM's reaction...
    This has been their major state effort lately.

    Posted by: woody | Feb 13, 2014 2:52:04 PM


  6. First one in line. First call.
    NO amendments and then a loud burst of Yay! from the balcony.

    Talk about getting out of Dodge!
    That was absolutely the fastest session I've ever seen.
    Blink and you missed it.

    LOL. Ya think all those emails to Indiana legislators about Kentucky's ruling helped?

    ADF & NOM & AFA heads are exploding!
    Indiana was supposed to be their much championed turning point. @SERIOUSLY is right. It turned out to be their Waterloo!

    Posted by: BOOM! | Feb 13, 2014 2:56:33 PM


  7. This has been such an embarrassment for Indiana.

    Posted by: Hey Darlin' | Feb 13, 2014 2:58:17 PM


  8. They did the right thing by moving on from it.

    Posted by: Hey Darlin' | Feb 13, 2014 2:58:45 PM


  9. All this work to get this done and by 2016 even if it passes, it will just got shot right back down from the Circuit Court like all of the others. All this time is wasted.

    Posted by: Richard Harney | Feb 13, 2014 3:02:14 PM


  10. The Indiana Senate is just playing for time in hopes that this will all go away. The Indiana Senators are, also, fully aware that the bill will have less of a chance for passage in a presidential election year. This is a very smart move on the part of the Indiana Senate!

    Posted by: RonCharles | Feb 13, 2014 3:45:48 PM


  11. Yup, just as I figured, they brushed it under the rug mainly because they were scared it was going to be VOTED AGAINST if it came up this fall as a referendum. Once they saw the handwriting on the wall, they got very scared and totally chickened out.

    Wimps. I was ready to vote NO on it and so were a majority of Hoosiers.

    Posted by: johnny | Feb 13, 2014 3:53:08 PM


  12. @ANDY TOWLETTE, no, the story was not very clear. Here's my edit:


    The Indiana Senate today passed HJR3--the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage--with no amendments. The language struck by the House earlier this month was not reinserted, meaning the measure must begin its process from the beginning. It will not reach voters until at least 2016.

    In January, the House struck language that would have banned recognition of other relationships "identical or substantially similar" to marriage. The Senate would have had to restore the original language and have the House pass it again to have it sent to voters this year. They chose not to do so.

    A amendment to Indiana's constitution needs to pass two separately-elected General Assemblies without any changes, and then be approved by a voter majority in a public referendum before becoming part of the constitution.

    Posted by: JJ | Feb 13, 2014 3:53:48 PM


  13. Just to be clear, a majority NO vote on the referendum this fall would have meant that the addition of a marriage equality ban to the state constitution could NOT be added.

    It does get confusing when you're voting on discrimination.

    Posted by: johnny | Feb 13, 2014 3:55:54 PM


  14. Disagree about it not going to ballot in 2016...most of the state's legislature is still against marriage equality, several have said they will vote for a ban on marriage equality if brought to them, and based on polls, so is the majority of the state's residents are also against it. The question will be whether Mike Pence wants it on the ballot in 2016. The reason he's been pushing so hard for this to go to voters in 2014 is because he doesn't want it hanging over his head in 2016.

    Anyway, today is a day to celebrate. HJR3 was so broad that state legislators felt it would lead to lawsuits and thus were scared off of voting for it. Freedom Indiana put in a lot of work and have been rewarded.

    Posted by: Francis | Feb 13, 2014 3:56:22 PM


  15. @JJ,

    the senate passed HJR3 with no amendments, meaning they want HJR3 not only to ban same sex marriages but other similar relationships [civil unions, domestic partnerships] - while the House HJR3 amended only bans same sex marriages. So even though the bill will have to start from scratch again, the anti-gay intentions of the Senate is worst compare to the House ?

    Posted by: Andy Towlette | Feb 13, 2014 4:03:43 PM


  16. Even if it gets to the ballot in 2016, which, given where things are headed, is far from probable no matter how anti-gay Indiana Republicans are, it will be way too late on constitutional terms for this to pass muster. Effectively, the homophobes missed their window; some may even be relieved about that.

    Posted by: Ernie | Feb 13, 2014 4:05:11 PM


  17. @ANDY TOWLETTE, no the Senate took up the version passed by the house, as amended there--i.e., with no civil unions ban. If the Senate had passed a different version than the House, then it would go back to the House for a vote. Both chambers passed the same version, so this round is done and the clock starts over.

    Posted by: JJ | Feb 13, 2014 4:46:22 PM


  18. It is very confusing, but in the end, ultimately good news.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Feb 13, 2014 4:58:56 PM


  19. The voters supporting this cannot understand why the legislature is listening to the progressive constituents and not putting this bigotry in the Constitution as soon as possible. Hopefully Indiana will realize by 2016 that SSM is not Satan's work.

    Posted by: JEFF YORK | Feb 13, 2014 5:29:59 PM


  20. I think I can hear Pence and Bosma screaming their heads off all the way from Chicago! :P

    Posted by: Matt | Feb 13, 2014 6:45:44 PM


  21. Maybe I'm just being Pollyana-ish, but I'm thinking this will all be moot in 2016, with the U.S. Supreme Court having been backed into the corner of declaring equal marriage the right of all Americans by then.

    Posted by: Zlick | Feb 13, 2014 7:49:01 PM


  22. Frances, it depends on what polls you actually believe. This is such a divisive issue here that many wives have anonymously stated that while they may publicly state (in a poll) they are not in favor of marriage equality, they would still vote YES for it in private. It's the same kind of polling that showed Obama losing the election in 2008 but then the reality of Indiana turning blue showed the polling data was clearly not in sync with reality. Polls are tricky when it comes to the hoosier state. There are a lot of closet democrats here. They say they're republican to keep peace in their circles, but then they go and vote democratic on the downlow.

    Posted by: johnny | Feb 14, 2014 7:06:55 AM


  23. I thought only black people were homophobic?

    Posted by: You | Feb 14, 2014 9:04:04 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Gay Rights Activists In Kenya Protest Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill: VIDEO« «