You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

Sunday Centerpiece

  • Building up downtown
      Editor’s note: Journal Gazette photographer Rachel Von lives and works in downtown Fort Wayne.
  • A homecoming awash in wonder
    Minn Mying Nan Tin, director of the Burmese Advocacy Center in Fort Wayne, recently returned from her second trip this year to Myanmar, the homeland she left more than two decades ago.
  • The meaning behind the vote
    There has been quite a bit of talk about how quiet this election is in Indiana. It has lacked the excitement of the 2008 primary election, but there still are plenty of things to watch for on Election Day.

A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing an amendment to Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution concerning marriage.
Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana is proposed and agreed to by this, the One Hundred Seventeenth General Assembly of the State of Indiana, and is referred to the next General Assembly for reconsideration and agreement.

SECTION 2. Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Section 38. Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Illustration by Gregg Bender | The Journal Gazette


Lawmakers stand against social tide in promoting HJR 6

The elephant in the room as the General Assembly prepares to convene is one of its own creation. House Joint Resolution 6 lumbers into the Indiana Statehouse next month destined to create a distraction from the business the GOP-controlled legislature would prefer to have voters see in an election year.

In wading into the social issues battlefield their former party leader once warned against, GOP legislative leaders set the scene for a conflict they undoubtedly wish they had avoided. Moreover, what they do in the coming session ultimately will make no difference. Same-sex marriage is coming to Indiana. Look for its arrival by one of these routes:

The U.S. Supreme Court: The court in June overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited recognition of same-sex marriage. While the justices declined to assert a constitutional right for two men or two women to marry, lawsuits working their way through courts across the nation could produce the precedent-setting case. It was a law banning interracial marriages that resulted in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision.

SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein writes that marriage-equality test cases are moving rapidly.

"Roughly ten cases are already pending," he notes in a recent post. "Technically, the Justices could stay out of the fray; nothing requires them to hear such a case. But realistically, the question of whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional is so important that the Court must decide it."

Goldstein raises the possibility that the Supreme Court might initially rule against same-sex marriage advocates, although he notes the decision would "almost surely be overturned after social attitudes have evolved further."

A state lawsuit: In his dissent in the DOMA decision, Justice Antonin Scalia charged that the majority opinion purported to support states rights, but actually provided a road map for challenges to state bans. One such challenge could overturn Indiana's ban, which exists whether it is written into the constitution or not.

The Indiana Court of Appeals in 2005 rejected a challenge by three gay couples to the current state law, which prohibits recognition of legal same-sex marriages from other states.

The appeals court upheld a lower court decision to dismiss the couples' lawsuit on grounds that state law clearly defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

"What we decide today is that the Indiana constitution does not require the governmental recognition of same-sex marriage, although the legislature is certainly free to grant such recognition or create a parallel institution under that document," the court said in its ruling.

House Speaker Brian Bosma said at the time that the ruling reinforced the need to "positively protect marriage" with a constitutional amendment, while Charlotte Egler, one of the plaintiffs, predicted that opinions would change.

"Temporarily, this is a disappointment and a defeat, and in the long run attitudes change and people get to know their neighbors," Egler said. "Opinion is going to change, and laws are going to change to reflect that."

Public opinion: Sixteen states and the District of Columbia now allow two men or two women to marry. Poll after poll shows growing support for gay marriage.

In Indiana, a recent survey by WISH-TV and Ball State University found 58 percent of respondents oppose HJR 6; 48 percent want to legalize same-sex marriage.

Freedom Indiana, the bipartisan coalition formed to fight HJR 6, has rallied an impressive roster of opponents: Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry and his counterparts in most major Indiana cities, many of the state's colleges and universities, Indiana University Health system, the Indy Chamber and – as of last week – Greater Fort Wayne Inc. They've also enlisted the powerful voices of corporate heavyweights, including Eli Lilly, Cummins Engine and Emmis Communications.

Those opinions matter to lawmakers, but so do the views of voters. If Indiana lawmakers stick to their plan to let the electorate decide, they risk repeating the example of Minnesota, where a Republican-initiated push for a constitutional referendum backfired on its supporters. When the proposed amendment went before voters there last November, it drew Democratic voters out in force, defeating not only the referendum but also costing the GOP its majorities in both the House and Senate.

Energized by their success in defeating the constitutional amendment and electing Democratic majorities, same-sex marriage supporters pushed for legalization of gay marriage. The bill was approved and signed into law in May.

Indiana's GOP leaders are probably too smart to repeat the mistake of their Minnesota brethren. Concern for their own electoral success inevitably will overcome enthusiasm for banning same-sex marriage and they won't risk pulling young and liberal voters to the polls.

In time, however, those voters will seek to undo the current ban and join the growing list of states choosing to extend rights instead of restricting them.

Karen Francisco, editorial page editor, has worked at The Journal Gazette since 2000 and for Indiana newspapers since 1982. She can be reached at 260-461-8206 or by email,