Buy Photo Demonstrators from both sides of the HJR-3 issue shout and sing outside the Indiana Senate chamber at the Statehouse before the start of the scheduled second reading for the proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage on Thursday, February 13, 2014. Two amendments have been filed to restore the ban on civil unions. (Photo: Charlie Nye/The Star)Buy Photo
In the end, neither opponents nor supporters were totally satisfied Monday when the debate over Indiana's same-sex marriage ban came to a close — at least for the rest of this legislative session.
After an hourlong debate, the Senate voted 32-17 in favor of the weakened constitutional ban, which had encountered many ups and downs over six weeks.
Some conservatives who had fought for the constitutional ban for years weren't all that happy with its passage because it didn't include original language that also would have banned civil unions. The House removed that provision last month.
DATABASE: How Indiana senators voted on HJR-3
After a weekend Twitter tirade that in part blamed inactive churches for the weakened ban, Sen. Mike Delph announced at a news conference that he was voting against it because it was too watered down.
"For my faith and plain-spokenness, I make no apologies," Delph said.
Opponents were pleased it didn't include the broader ban but still saw the measure, known as House Joint Resolution 3, as a form of discrimination against gays and lesbians.
MORE COVERAGE: Errika D. Smith: Tepid vote on HJR-3 proves times are changing
"We have the opportunity to make history today by puttting an end to HJR-3 once and for all," Democratic Leader Tim Lanane of Anderson urged the Senate. "Time is not on the side of discrimination."
Despite Monday's favorable vote, the measure will not go on the November ballot as supporters, such as Gov. Mike Pence, had hoped.
Two separately elected legislatures must approve constitutional amendments with identical language before they can go to voters, and the amendment approved this year now differs from the one passed in 2011 because it does not include the ban on civil unions.
Consequently, the General Assembly would have to approve the revised ban again in 2015 or 2016 before a public referendum could be held in November 2016.
Senate President Pro Tempore David Long said he expects the General Assembly to take up the ban again next year.
"That is our intent right now," he said. "I'll have to sit down with all of our caucus and decide that, but I think right now that's our mindset."
Lobbying groups supporting the constitutional ban expressed mixed feelings about the outcome.
"We applaud this symbolic statement affirming the truth that marriage is not just any relationship, but the special union of a man and a woman," said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana.
But he said it is "disappointing the legislature decided to leave the future of marriage in the hands of judges and activists for another two years."
Clark said the "ideal of marriage deserved to be protected and passed on to the next generation. Hoosiers should have been allowed the right to vote on this, rather than risk another two years of having a new definition of marriage forced upon every church, school and business in Indiana."
A 'sigh of relief'
Megan Robertson, campaign director of Freedom Indiana, a group formed to fight the amendment, said, "We can finally breathe a collective sign of relief that lawmakers are finished with the amendment this session, and it will not appear on the ballot this November."
She characterized opponents as "underdogs" in this fight from the beginning and said everyone involved should be proud of their hard work.
"Our success reflects the strength of the incredible coalition we were able to build in just six months," she said.
Quickly shifting public opinion away from such bans and recent court opinions against them make it unclear how well a constitutional ban on gay marriage would be received a year from now.
Three years ago, only 10 senators, all Democrats, voted against the amendment. While more from each party voted against it this year, the amendment was eight votes short of being defeated.
Still, Monday's vote revealed a shift among lawmakers in the Senate. Six members who voted for the amendment in 2011 — including Delph — voted against it this time.
Others who changed their votes were: Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette; Sen. Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville; Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville; Sen. Frank Mrvan, D-Hammond; and Sen. Tim Skinner, D-Terre Haute.
All the supporters were Republicans, with the exception of Sen. Richard Young, D- Milltown.
Becker said she switched her vote because of strong opposition among constituents, universities and the business community in the Evansville area. "I heard back from over 1,000 constituents, and 800 were opposed to HJR-3," she said.
While she added she supports traditional marriage, Becker said, "Since we already have a law on the books, we really don't need to deal with this issue."
Current state law bans gay marriage, but some conservatives also want the ban to be enshrined in the state constitution so it would be more difficult to undo.
Alting, who previously had announced his opposition, said he changed his mind because the constitution should grant people rights, not take them away. He said the amendment sends a "terrible message to the rest of the country about Indiana not being very tolerant. The perception is that it's just mean."
No arm-twisting
During this whole process, Alting said, there was "no arm-twisting or baseball bat approach" by leadership. "In the old days, there might have been a threat: 'You vote this way with leadership, or I'll pull your chairmanship.' There was none of that, none of that."
With the issue decided for this session, it's now going to be up to another legislature to consider whether to pass it again.
"It's passed (the House and Senate) four times now," said Brandt Hershman, R-Buck Creek. "So I think historic evidence is it can pass the General Assembly, and I think the polls suggest that even though public opinion has changed somewhat, a clear majority of people want the opportunity to vote on the issue, either pro or con."
Call Star reporter Tony Cook at (317) 444-6081. Follow him on Twitter: @indystartony.
Read or Share this story: http://indy.st/1eJuzOa
'''Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States''' 








----
1May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet. 
2Same-sex marriage laws in California are complicated, please see the ''Wikipedia'' article on .




Indiana's  passed a proposed constitutional amendment Monday that would ban same-sex marriage in the state's . Indiana's  already prohibits same-sex marriage. A sentence banning  was removed from the proposal. 

For a constitutional amendment to be approved in Indiana, it must pass both the  and the Senate during two separately elected legislatures, which means there has to be an election between the two sets of votes. The proposed amendment cannot be changed from one voting session to another and cannot be changed from the House of Representatives to the Senate. Once the proposed amendment has passed those hurdles, then the amendment goes to Indiana voters who vote yea or nay on the amendment.

Following the House of Representatives' approval, the Senate passed the proposed amendment, which is known as House Joint Resolution 3, with a vote of 32–17 Monday. Opponents needed eight more votes to stop the proposed amendment from reaching the necessary margin of support.

The proposed amendment already passed both houses in 2011. A change was made this legislative session when the second sentence was deleted first by the House of Representatives and then was passed in a similar form by the Senate Monday. The failure of the second sentence, which proposes to ban same-sex civil unions, could possibly open the door for civil unions in the future. Following the process,  will be reviewed again by the next elected legislature in either 2015 or 2016 to remain in process. 

Although the amended version grants the possibility for civil unions in the future, some in the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community say it isn't enough. 

"I think it's still bad because it fails to legitimize us as human beings, since it's trying to deny us basic rights,” said Myranda Wanden, program director at , an organization that provides support and advocacy for LBGT teens and young adults. 

Indiana   supported the proposed amendment. Pence, in his "State of the State" speech for 2014, said, “I believe in traditional marriage, and I have long held the view that the people, rather than unelected judges, should decide matters of such great consequence". Pence also called for a civil debate for the matter and to treat everyone with respect. 

“I think the rest of the country is moving towards being more open and accepting about gay marriage," Wanden said. "I think Indiana, which is a conservative red state, saw this and wanted to resist the changing tide. I think it caused fear in many legislators, but I definitely don't think it's reflective of a majority of the Indiana population.”

Indiana is not the only state that prohibits same-sex marriage by law or as proposed by constitution. There are 29 other states that prohibit same-sex civil marriages under their constitutions, while Indiana and three other states prohibit it by statute. The states that allow for some form of same-sex marriage number 17 plus Washington, DC.

Worldwide, there is a wide diversity in same-sex marriage and rights laws. At this time, 17 countries allow same-sex marriage, the most recent being Scotland. Most of the countries that allow same-sex marriage are concentrated in Europe, but there are also countries in South America and Africa, as well as New Zealand, Canada, and parts of Mexico that have legalized same-sex marriage. 
Homosexual sex is legally criminal in at least 78 countries, and punishable by death in five.