HJR3 goes to Senate for vote

After its third committee hearing in two months, HJR 3 will make its way to the floor of the Indiana Senate.

The Senate Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee voted 8-4 along party lines Monday to approve the constitutional amendment, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

“The question we are debating today is not about equality,” said Allison Slater of the National Organization for Marriage during testimony before the vote. “Children are born with a mother-shaped hole and a father-shaped hole in their hearts. Logic and biology dictate that a woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother, no matter how much they love that child.”

Slater and other proponents of HJR 3 urged legislators not only to support the amendment but to reinsert the controversial second sentence, which prohibited civil unions and was removed by the House of Representatives two weeks ago.

If the sentence is reinserted by the Senate and the full version is supported by the House, citizens could vote on the constitutional amendment in November.

If the sentence is not reinserted, the passage of HJR 3 could take another two years and further debate in the General Assembly.

Opponents of HJR 3 argued, as they have in other hearings, that the constitutional amendment would be bad for business and give the state a national image of discrimination.

“This proposal constitutes discrimination,” State Sen. Timothy Lanane, D-Anderson, said. “It is discrimination. I think proposals like HJR 3 speak more to the past than to the future.”

These opponents, including IU and the Eli Lilly Foundation, were joined by the NCAA, which announced its opposition early in the debate.

The college athletics organization has its headquarters in Indianapolis.

In addition to economic and political arguments, proponents and opponents of HJR 3 have put forth dozens of speakers to tell their personal stories throughout this debate.

Micah Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana, said he did not believe anything bad would happen if marriage were defined as being between a man and a woman in the state constitution.

“Marriage is the special union of a man and a woman that has served Indiana well since our founding,” he said.

Fort Wayne resident Jennifer Fisher told the story of her and her partner, a police officer, as part of anti-HJR 3 testimony.

“The reality is that as we prepare to start a family in the state of Indiana, this legislation is scary,” she said of her and her partner. “She’ll have our children, and legally I will have no right to those children. If she is killed in the line of duty, someone could take away my family.”

HJR 3 will be considered by the full Senate for debate, possibly this week, where the second sentence could be reinserted to the language.

After that, the chamber will vote.

Depending on decisions made in the Senate chamber this week, the 10-year saga of Indiana’s marriage amendment could be coming to a close.

Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.