Ball State University interior designer Dan Stephenson said when his mother died four years ago, his partner had to use vacation days to attend the funeral, a benefit automatically given to married couples.
Since then, the university passed a regulation letting same-sex domestic partners take time off for a death in the family.
This, and other employee benefits for same-sex partners, could be lost if Indiana passes an amendment banning same-sex marriage, Stephenson said.
State senators will vote on whether to place Senate Joint Resolution No. 7 on the ballot in 2008. According to the bill, a legal marriage is "only the union of one man and one woman."
Stephenson said the amendment will ostracize the gay community if it passes.
"My partner and I have been together for almost 20 years, and we've paid the same taxes as everybody else," he said, "but we're being treated as second-class citizens. I would consider moving to a state where they wouldn't treat me that way."
Supporters push for what they feel is best for Indiana.
Advance America Founder Eric Miller said his organization is working to pass SJR 7 and protect traditional marriages.
"I believe it is in the best interest for the children and the moral foundation of our state and nation to have marriage only between one man and one woman," he said. "We believe this will benefit the state of Indiana by continuing to define marriage as it has historically been defined, and this is best for society."
Advance America is also against same-sex civil unions, Miller said.
"Civil union is nothing more than marriage with a different name," he said.
Those speaking out against the bill are worried about potential side effects it could have on the state's society and economy.
Indiana Equality spokesperson Jerame Davis said if the amendment is passed it will be almost impossible to overturn.
"The way the amendment is written, even if the legislators somewhere down the road wanted to pass a law that is positive toward same-sex couples, this would prevent that," he said. "Imagine how hard it would be to pass another amendment to change this amendment."
Stephenson said Eli Lilly and Co., Cummins, Inc., WellPoint, Inc. and Dow AgroSciences LLC have all spoken against SJR 7. The marriage ban might drive good employees away, he said.
"Indiana has this problem with keeping educated people here," Stephenson said. "It's not going to make it better when they can go to places where they don't treat you this way."
CONFUSING WORDING
According to the second line of the bill, "Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Davis said this vague and confusing wording could especially cause problems. The interpretation of the second line of SJR 7 could cause two problems: State employees, including public university staff and faculty, could lose their domestic partner benefits, and domestic battery laws might no longer apply to same-sex couples.
"The second line goes way beyond saying that marriage is beyond one man and one woman," he said.
Ball State attorney John Moll said these concerns are unfounded. The legislature is debating whether the wording should change, he said.
Davis said trends in other states have caused the bill's protestors to worry about interpretations of the document. Although the politicians who proposed the amendment said they wouldn't change laws for domestic partner benefits or domestic abuse, they might still file lawsuits against these after the amendment has passed, he said.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Stephenson said Michigan passed a same-sex marriage ban and soon after outlawed benefits for state employees' same-sex domestic partners, including faculty at state universities.
"People are saying that won't happen here, but they said the same thing in Michigan before," he said.
Davis said the sponsors of Indiana's amendment have publicly stated they want to abolish domestic partner benefits.
Ball State employee benefits manager Polly Booher said Ball State employees who ask for same-sex domestic partner benefits must meet certain criteria.
According to documents passed by the Board of Trustees, employees and domestic partners must live in the same residence, not be married or in another relationship and fulfill other legal requirements for married couples.
Booher said Ball State offers the same benefits for domestic partners as it does for married employees, but domestic partners must provide an affidavit certifying that they meet the criteria.
Stephenson said it is still more difficult for employees to get full domestic partner benefits than it is to get marriage benefits.
Domestic partners must individually request every benefit, but spouses automatically receive full coverage, he said.
"If you got married, all you have to do is produce a marriage certificate, and they change everything," he said. "If it's a domestic partnership, you have to request what it is you want specifically."
The university also provides health and dental insurance to domestic partners as long as they meet the same criteria, she said.
Stephenson said he was not worried about losing health coverage because his partner also works at Ball State. They receive the same insurance, regardless of their relationship, but it could be a problem for other same-sex couples, he said.
"If it's somebody who needs insurance, they would lose their health benefits for their partner, which is a really big deal," he said.
DOMESTIC ABUSE
Davis said after Ohio banned same-sex marriage, it opened a door that allowed domestic violence to be committed without punishment in certain circumstances.
"In Ohio when they passed their ban, the courts and law enforcement agencies said 'We can't do this anymore because that would be approximating marriage,'" Stephenson said. "If you are in a relationship, it's domestic abuse, whether married or not."
Ohio does not legally recognize same-sex domestic partners as being in a relationship, he said.
Davis said the marriage amendment in Ohio was written as vaguely as Indiana's, and the same problems with domestic abuse could arise in this state.
"If they pass this [in Indiana], it could happen," Stephenson said. "Even the governor of Ohio came out against the ban, and it still passed. Now these are the kind of things that are happening."
Be the first to comment on this article!