After traveling to Washington, D.C., for the Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage, one of the plaintiffs in the case against Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban says he’s cautiously optimistic.
Greg Hasty and his husband C.J. Vallero were one of many couples who stood outside the U.S. Supreme Court to express their views on the same-sex marriage debate.
Hasty wasn’t able to get into the actual courtroom—there’s only room for a few members of the public--but he says after being in D.C. and listening to the arguments he’s eagerly awaiting the court’s decision.
A Senate committee Monday approved HJR-3, the proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. The debate surrounding the measure shifted during Monday’s hearing, focusing more on the restoration of the amendment’s controversial second sentence.
The House removed HJR-3’s second sentence, which bans civil unions, after concerns were raised it could prohibit domestic partnership benefits. Proponents of the measure, including Governor Mike Pence, are calling on the Senate to reinsert that language.
Senate President Pro Tem David Long announced Thursday he will assign HJR-3 to the House Rules Committee and hopes to get it to the floor without changes. HJR-3 is the proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
The House Tuesday approved the amended version of HJR-3, the proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
The House voted Monday to alter HJR-3, taking out the measure’s controversial second sentence banning civil unions. That version of the amendment passed the House by a comfortable margin Tuesday, 57 to 40.
The change also restarts the ratification process, potentially putting it on the ballot in 2016, instead of this fall.
House Minority Leader Scott Pelath says simply removing the second sentence isn’t enough:
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers Monday voted to remove a portion of HJR-3, the proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. The change would also restart the ratification process.
Twenty-three Republicans joined 29 Democrats to approve an amendment offered by West Lafayette Republican Representative Randy Truitt removing HJR-3’s second sentence, a portion that banned legal statuses “substantially similar” to marriage.
Many of the same faces, much of the same testimony, but a different result – a House committee Wednesday approved the proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
The House Judiciary Committee last week took more than three hours of testimony on the proposed amendment known as HJR-3. But that committee did not take a vote, and after concerns arose that it would not pass the committee, House Speaker Brian Bosma reassigned HJR-3 to the House Elections Committee.
House Speaker Brian Bosma announced Tuesday he is reassigning the proposed same sex marriage ban amendment to a new committee. The move is designed to ensure the amendment reaches the House floor.
The proposed same sex marriage ban amendment known as HJR-3 was initially assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. But after a more than three hour long hearing last Monday, committee chairman Greg Steuerwald didn’t call for a vote.
Speaker Brian Bosma says Steuerwald told him he doubts the amendment would have passed the committee and advanced to the House floor.
Speaker Brian Bosma says a recent poll commissioned by House and Senate Republicans clearly indicates that Hoosiers want to have their say at the ballot box on the proposed amendment banning same sex marriage.
The House and Senate GOP caucuses commissioned a phone survey of registered voters that took place last week asking Hoosiers for their view on the same sex marriage ban amendment known as HJR-3.
53 percent of those surveyed say they support the amendment, contrary to earlier poll numbers put out by Freedom Indiana, a coalition opposing the measure.
People on both sides of the debate over Indiana’s proposed same sex marriage ban amendment spoke passionately for hours in front of a packed House chamber Monday, as the amendment made its first legislative stop in a House committee.
The House Judiciary Committee audience was a sea of red – that’s the color opponents of the marriage amendment known as HJR-3 chose to wear. Those who testified before the committee in opposition to the amendment were from a diverse background – there were leaders from Indiana’s business and faith communities, legal experts and average citizens.