Home / About the Amendment

The Amendment (SJR-7)

ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA IS AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Section 38. (a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) 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.

Broad social risks arise from the ambiguity of clause (b) of the amendment.

Timeline

This proposed amendment must be passed by two separately elected general assemblies and ratified by a majority of the state's voters.

  • Spring 2005: The amendment (SJR-7) completed its first passage through both houses of the Indiana General Assembly.
  • Spring 2007: The amendment was defeated in committee by a 5-5 vote.
  • Spring 2008: The amendment will likely be voted on again by both houses of the Indiana General Assembly.
  • Fall 2008: If passed by the Indiana General Assembly a second time, the amendment will be on the ballot for public vote.

How This Affects YOU


ONE MORE BLACK EYE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS

Overview

  • Over 124,000 unmarried Hoosiers couples live together
  • 46.5% of domestic violence perpetrators in Indiana are a woman's live-in friend or boyfriend
  • Passage of amendment will invalidate domestic violence protections for unmarried couples
  • Ohio, whose amendment interacts with domestic violence law similarly, has already lost such protections - loss confirmed by their appellate courts

Analysis

The proposed amendment threatens to weaken established domestic violence protections. There are over 124,000 unmarried Hoosier couples living together.1 From July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, 46.5% of all domestic violence perpetrators in Indiana were a woman's live-in friend or boyfriend.2 Because Indiana's amendment expressly states that the legal incidents of marriage may not be conferred upon unmarried couples, Indiana trial courts will begin dismissing domestic violence charges against individuals who abuse their unmarried partners if the amendment passes.

Numerous Ohio trial courts ruled in 2005 that the state's recent "marriage" amendment made it unconstitutional to pursue domestic violence charges against unmarried people. In several cases Ohio state judges reduced the domestic violence charge of a men who assaulted their live-in girlfriends, citing Ohio's marriage amendment in the decisions. They ruled that the amendment made part of the state's domestic violence law unconstitutional.3 Several divisions of the Ohio Court of Appeals agreed with those holdings in 2006.4 Ohio's law on domestic violence applies to a "person living as a spouse."5 The courts found that the law, in effect, recognized a legal status for unmarried couples that approximated marriage, in direct violation of the amendment.6 Like Ohio, Indiana domestic battery law applies to people who are "living as if" spouses.7 In Utah, too, questions have risen on whether that state's amendment would invalidate protective orders issued to unmarried couples.8


CREATING UNCERTAINTY FOR OUR SENIOR CITIZENS

Overview

  • Over 220,000 single Hoosiers over the age of 65
  • Many seniors choose not to remarry so as not to lose a pension or Social Security from a deceased spouse
  • Passage of amendment threatens to topple contractual care agreements dealing the "legal incidents of marriage" - which remain undefined

Analysis

There are over 220,000 single Hoosiers over the age of 65.9 Today, many senior citizens choose not to remarry so as not to lose significant financial benefits, such as a pension or Social Security from a deceased spouse.10 Combining resources by sharing costs provides opportunities for senior citizens to enjoy a higher quality of life. However, the proposed amendment threatens to topple private contracts dealing with the "legal incidents of marriage" - which remain undefined. Such agreements include arrangements that unmarried senior couples create to share legal, financial, and healthcare decisions.

The governor of Virginia refused to sign that state's amendment, claiming: "The broad wording of the proposed constitutional amendment goes much further than [marriage between one man and one woman], threatening the constitutional rights of individuals to enter into private contracts…" Senior groups in Wisconsin had the same concerns about their amendment stating, "…the second sentence could put up for question any contractual agreements that two loving people might establish between themselves (i.e. powers of attorney for healthcare, and for finances and property). The courts could conceivably become involved in lengthy and costly cases involving the arrangements that we might make between unmarried seniors in committed relationships."


FEWER LOVING HOMES FOR CHILDREN IN NEED

Overview

  • 32% of all adoptions in the U.S. are by persons who are not married
  • Over 117,000 children waiting to be adopted in the U.S.
  • Over 2,500 children waiting to be adopted in Indiana
  • Indiana allows adoption "in the best interest of a child" by unmarried couples, but courts have suggested child rearing is a major function of marriage

Analysis

The proposed amendment jeopardizes the ability of unmarried persons to adopt or foster children. In 2004 there were 517,000 children in foster care nationally, and 117,000 of those children were waiting to be adopted.11 32% of all adoptions in the U.S. are by persons who are not married.12 Currently, there are over 37,000 adopted children living in Indiana13, approximately 11,800 adopted by unmarried persons. In 2004 there were over 2,593 Indiana children waiting to be adopted.14 Loving children in need of nurturing parents would be denied the opportunity of a secure home. If this broadly worded "marriage" amendment passes, existing, stable foster care placements might also be disrupted.

In August of 2006 the Indiana Supreme Court let stand a ruling affirming the right of unmarried couples to jointly adopt under Indiana law. This ruling encompasses all unmarried couples. However, if Indiana's amendment passes it could invalidate this ruling and only allow adoption by married couples. In Ohio and Utah arguments have been made to dissolve parental rights based on their "marriage" amendments.


LOWERING THE BAR ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Overview

  • Universities in Ohio and Michigan are being sued for offering domestic partner benefits due to their states' amendments
  • Universities insist such benefits are critical to attracting and retaining the best educators and researchers
  • Over 39,000 Indiana college and university employees stand to lose existing domestic partner benefits

Analysis

Colleges and universities in Indiana may be forced to cancel domestic partner benefits for over 39,000 employees if this amendment is allowed to pass. Indiana University, Purdue University, IUPUI, Ball State University, Indiana State University, Butler, and DePauw all offer domestic partner benefits. According to these universities, domestic partner benefits are critical to attracting and retaining the best educators and researchers. The high status of our state universities will undoubtedly suffer, as Indiana will no longer be able to compete on the national or global level for the most talented people.

In Ohio, the University of Toledo announced that it could no longer consider granting partner benefits for unmarried couples on the basis of the marriage amendment that was passed in 2004.15 Ohio Representative Tom Brinkman Jr. sued Miami University for "creating something that looks like marriage" which he believed violated Ohio's amended constitution. Miami began offering partner benefits in July of 2004, four months before voters approved Ohio's amendment.16 Also in 2004, at the request of a faculty committee, Utah State University was considering a proposal to offer domestic partner benefits. The proposal was killed after the university’s attorney noted that it might violate the recently ratified constitutional amendment.17 In July 2006, the American Family Association of Michigan filed a lawsuit seeking to stop Michigan State University from offering domestic partner benefits based on Michigan's 2004 "marriage" amendment to that state's constitution.18 In February of 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that domestic partner benefits for public employees are the same as marriage rights and are thus illegal under their amended constitution.19 Clearly the proponents these amendments openly intend to disrupt areas not associated with marriage.


A COMPETITIVE LOSS FOR INDIANA BUSINESS

Overview

  • Over 8000 U.S. firms currently provide domestic partner benefits
  • 51% of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner health insurance benefits
  • At least 38 companies headquartered in Indiana offer domestic partner benefits
  • Passage of amendment challenges the right of private companies to offer these benefits

Analysis

Over 8000 U.S. firms currently provide domestic partner benefits20, and 51% of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner health insurance benefits.21 At least 38 companies headquartered in Indiana offer domestic partner benefits.22 The passage of this amendment may mean the end of Indiana state institutions providing domestic partner benefits for their employees. In many cases these benefits include coverage for any two people living together - regardless of sex. The amendment may even challenge and subsequently deny the right of private companies to offer these benefits to their employees.

Many privately owned companies in Indiana currently provide domestic partner benefits. These companies include AT&T, Conseco, Cummins, Daimler-Chrysler, Delphi, Dow AgroScience, Eli Lilly, Ford Motors, General Motors, Guidant, NCAA, NiSource, Target, Verizon Communications, Wellpoint, and many more.

For Indiana to achieve success in the 21st century, it must create employment and lifestyle opportunities for the talented individuals graduating from Indiana's colleges and universities that are more advantageous than opportunities in other states. Indiana ranks 50th in the nation for retention and employment of college graduates.23

Denying equal protections under the law will not help to retain people, and will in fact be counterproductive. Studies have shown that communities valuing diversity attract the most educated and talented workforces. In turn, businesses are increasingly making location decisions based on where the talent pool is located. According to the management-consulting firm McKinsey and Company, the "war for talent" is the number one competitive issue facing companies in the United States. One consultant notes that job candidates increasingly ask about domestic-partner benefits, and companies that don't offer them often find that the interview "falls flat."24 In the past decade states have become increasingly aware that cities lacking diversity and tolerance are losing in the economic development race.25 This is increasingly important as the BioCrossroads organization works to create new jobs and spur new business in the life science sector of Indiana's economy.


AMENDMENT'S PROBLEMS CANNOT BE FIXED BY NEW LAWS

Overview

  • "Indiana law may not be construed" – neither courts nor the legislature can fix these problems once the amendment passes.

Analysis

Amendment proponents say that any of these issues can be easily fixed by the passage of new laws. This could not be further from the truth. Although the intent was take power out of the hands of the court, because the amendment states that "Indiana law may not be construed", the only way to fix these problems would be to amend Indiana's Constitution once again - a long and difficult process. Indiana's amendment process is long and rigorous for a reason: to identify and correct problems before they become part of our constitution.


VOTING DOWN THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE

Overview

  • Indiana’s Defense of Marriage law passed in 1997; Indiana Court of Appeals upheld that law

Analysis

Defeating the proposed amendment would NOT mean, as many supporters claim, that same sex marriages will become legal in Indiana. Indiana already has a Defense of Marriage law that was passed in 1997. This law prohibits marriage between two people of the same sex and provides that the state will not recognize such marriages entered into in other states. The Indiana Court of Appeals has since upheld that law.

Amendment Overview (PDF)
Reprecussions of the amendment in easy-to-digest bullet points.


Amendment Analysis (PDF)
In-depth analysis of the amendment and its reprecussions.


Amendment FAQs (PDF)
Frequently asked questions and the REAL answers.


Read the Fine Print (PDF)
Take an in-depth look at the language of the amendment and what it actually means.


Lessons from Other States (PDF)
See how amendment proponents have historically misled state legislatures.


Words Do Matter (PDF)
How Indiana’s proposed Amendment does NOT track with the Federal Marriage Amendment, and why that is so crucial.


1 2000 U.S. Census.

2 Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Program Statistics July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005.

3 State v. Burk, 2005 WL 786212 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Mar. 23, 2005); see also State v. Dixon, 2005 WL 1940110 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, 2005); City of Cleveland v. Voies, 2005 WL 1940135 (Cleveland Municipal Court, 2005); State v. Steineman, 2005 WL 1940104 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, 2005).

4 State of Ohio v. McKinley, No. 8-05-14, 2006 WL 1381635 (Ohio Ct. App. 3 Dist., 2006) (slip copy), State v. Ward, 849 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 2 Dist., 2006); see also State v. Phillips, 2006 WL 827400 (Ohio Ct. App. 2 Dist., 2006) (slip copy), State v. Davis, 2006 WL 1453112 (Ohio Ct. App. 2 Dist., 2006) (slip copy), State v. Robinson, 2006 WL 1461075 (Ohio Ct. App. 2 Dist., 2006) (slip copy), State v. Woullard, 2006 WL 926160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2 Dist., 2006) (slip copy), State v. Steinman, 2006 WL 925166 (Ohio Ct. App. 2 Dist., 2006) (slip copy), State v. McIntosh, 2006 WL 925179 (Ohio Ct. App. 2 Dist., 2006) (slip copy); see also dissenting opinion in State v. Douglas, 2006 WL 1304860 (Ohio Ct. App. 8 Dist. 2006) (slip copy).

5 "Judge: Ohio gay marriage ban prohibits some domestic violence charges," Connie Mabin, reported by the Associated Press on March 23, 2005. http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/11211907.htm.

6 Ohio's amendment states in relevant part: "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage."

7 See Indiana Code 35-42-2-1.3.

8 Utah's amendment provides: "Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage." http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595105511,00.html.

9 2000 U.S. Census.

10 "Inaction aborts gay-marriage bill," Jan Murphy, printed by The Patriot News on July 4, 2006.

11 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, 2004 Report. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report11.htm.

12 Ibid.

13 2000 U.S. Census.

14 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, 2004 Report. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report11.htm.

15 "Truth or Consequences: The Effects of Constitutional Amendments On Marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Utah," Human Rights Campaign, April 2005.

16 "Miami U. sued over domestic benefits," Lori Kurtzman, The Enquirer (Cincinnati), November 23, 2005.

17 "Truth or Consequences: The Effects of Constitutional Amendments On Marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Utah," Human Rights Campaign, April 2005.

18 "MSU gay-partner benefits challenged," David Eggert, Associated Press, printed by The Detroit Free Press on July 6, 2006.

19 Nat'l Pride At Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan, No. 265870, Feb. 1, 2007 (Mich. Ct. App.) (slip copy).

20 "Companies confused over gay rights," CNN, July 14, 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/07/13/corporate.gayrights/index.html

21 "The State of the Workplace 2005-2006," Human Rights Campaign, June 29, 2006.

22 Human Rights Campaign Foundation, January 24, 2007. http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Search_the_Database

23 "Combating Indiana's Brain Drain," Gary Gigerich, Inside Indiana Business, Oct. 13, 2005. http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/contributors.asp?id=469.

24 "Corporate America backs gay rights: Plugged in: Gay rights are good business, no matter the politics," Marc Gunther, Fortune Senior writer, printed on CNNMoney.com on April 26, 2006,

25 "The Rise of the Creative Class: Why cities without gays and rock bands are losing the economic development race," Richard Florida, published by the Washington Monthly, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html.