Text size  Increase text sizeDecrease text size      
Last updated: Thu. Jan. 09, 2014 - 07:34 am EDT


A compromise is possible on gay-marriage bill, if anybody wants one

HJR-6 is too broad, and amending it would offer years to clarify the issue

Click on image to view.
The Fort Report

This week's guest will be Cathie Humbarger, executive director of Allen County Right to Life, who will discuss the coming March for Life and the status of abortion in Fort Wayne and the nation. The episode will premiere at 5:30 p.m. Saturday on Comcast Channel 57 and FiOS Channel 27 and later at


Of all the issues to be considered by the General Assembly, none has generated more attention or controversy than House Joint Resolution 6 which, if passed than ratified by voters, would add this sentence to the state Constitution: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.”

But the bill also includes a second provision that has gone almost unnoticed – one that complicates an already difficult issue but, ironically, could provide at least a temporary compromise that makes sense in terms of policy and politics alike.

“No one knows (what the second sentence) means. It's very ambiguous and poorly written,” Freedom Indiana spokeswoman Jennifer Wagner said of the provision stating that, if HJR-6 passes, “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

The intent is open to interpretation, of course, but Wagner and Freedom Indiana, which has mobilized opposition to the bill among universities, mayors, corporations and others, say “no one has been able to clearly define what affects (it) would have on existing marriages, domestic partner benefits, human-rights ordinances, legal contracts and benefits for unmarried couples.”

Now, I have no doubt the overwhelming majority of HJR-6 opponents are motivated by their support of same-sex marriage – an issue that, as I have written before, pits my libertarian instincts against my understanding of Scripture. But even staunch gay-marriage opponents should be concerned that the second clause unnecessarily injects language that is not only vague but overly broad. The state has a legitimate interest in defining marriage – whatever that definition is -- but far less standing as to whether same-sex couples enter into contractual relationships or are covered by businesses' benefits programs.

“Some people think we should amend out that second clause,” said State Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, who called the issue “the toughest I've had to deal with in 17 years.” Although Long pledged recently on my “Fort Report” program (see video below) that the Legislature would not avoid a vote on HJR-6 this session, he added that “what the bill looks like is the issue. There are a lot of unknowns.”

If I read the political tea leaves properly, I suspect Republican leaders are seriously considering removing the problematic second clause. And because the amended version would not be identical to the bill that passed the House by a 70-26 vote and the Senate 40-11 two years ago, Wagner said, the amendment process would go back to square one, meaning the Legislature would have three years to pass the bill twice before sending it to voters for approval.

And if that sounds like a cynical legislative ploy to avoid a final vote on a difficult issue, think again. Removing the second clause would not only improve the bill but would provide time to consider the wisdom and necessity of prohibiting in the Constitution a practice that is already illegal in Indiana but is apparently gaining acceptance rapidly.

“It's a generational thing,” Long said, referring to acceptance of same-sex marriage among younger Hoosiers. “Opposition used to be 80 percent. Now it's 55 percent, and things are changing rapidly.”

Those who say the state has no business regulating marriage are wrong. Indiana code also limits marriage to close relatives, prohibits bigamy and establishes an age of consent – all of which could be challenged should the redefinition door be opened for same-sex couples.

But Wagner had a point when she said the Constitution should be amended sparingly, and only with broad support. If Long is right and public sentiment continues to evolve, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage enacted now may be supported by only a minority of Hoosiers in four years – but difficult to repeal.

Activists on both sides of the debate are not looking for compromise. But, for now, the better part of valor may be for the Legislature to strategically retreat by removing the second clause, passing the first and waiting for the dust to settle. Time may provide the clarity this issue currently lacks, but desperately needs.

Third term for Henry?

Will Tom Henry seek a third term as Fort Wayne's mayor next year? Some people apparently thought so after receiving invitations to the Jan. 25 “Mayor's Ball” sponsored by the Henry for Mayor Committee.

Henry, however, insists he's still undecided.

“It's still early. We have a gala every year. If I run, the proceeds will go into the campaign. If not, I can donate it to the (Democrat) party or another candidate.”

For what it's worth, I expect Henry to run. He's done a decent job, has a lot of public and private money to spend and his party lacks a strong alternative.

City Councilman Mitch Harper is the only announced Republican candidate to date.

This column is the commentary of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of The News-Sentinel. Email Kevin Leininger at or call him at 461-8355.

High 79 °F
Low 65 °F
75 °F
Light Rain
Sponsored by Masters Heating & Cooling, Inc.
Local Search