« Ind. Decisions - "Judge in Behrman case rejects bid for new trial" | Main | Courts - More on: Wisconsin Right to Life sues re questionaire to judges »

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Ind. Law - "Same-sex marriage ban proposal raises concerns" [Correction added]

Dan Shaw of the Lafayette Journal and Courier writes today:

Barry Schreier, a spokesman for Citizens for Civil Rights, said he believes a similar constitutional amendment in Indiana would undermine Purdue's policy of granting those benefits to the domestic partners of employees. Purdue adopted the policy in 2000, partly as a way to avoid losing scholars and administrators to universities that already had granted the benefits.

"This strikes at the financial competitiveness of the university," Schreier said of the proposed Indiana amendment.

Still, the fears of Schreier and others did not stop the Indiana Senate on Monday from passing Senate Joint Resolution 7, which next goes to the Indiana House of Representatives. If approved by the entire General Assembly, the resolution would allow Hoosiers to vote on the constitutional amendment on the 2008 ballot.

On Monday, Joe Bennett, a Purdue spokesman, said lawyers have told university officials that they shouldn't be concerned about the resolution. And he doesn't think the Michigan decision is an indication of what effects a ban on same-sex marriages would have in Indiana.

"Just because something happens in one area, that doesn't mean it will happen here," he said. "There are going to be differences."

Gayla Ruark of the Purdue University Human Resources Department said 31 university employees take advantage of the health insurance granted to domestic partners.

Indiana law already bans gay marriage. But Schreier said he thinks the constitutional ban on same-sex marriages may affect Purdue's policy because of the resolution's second provision. It states: "This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

[ILB note: As a reader has correctly pointed out, the Lafayette paper's quote omits part of SJR 7's section 2, which reads: "This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."]

Schreier said the passage is unclear and will invite judges to interpret its meaning. That result will be ironic since proponents of the amendment say they want to prevent judges from defining marriage other than as a union between a man and a woman, he said.

For more on the ambiguity issue, see this ILB entry from Feb. 1, particularly the last portion. For more on the Michigan decision, see this ILB entry from Feb. 2nd.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 14, 2007 09:21 AM
Posted to Indiana Law