SC, Ala. sites look back Betty Ford honored 20 years till the next one Dream Chaser details
NEWS
Nation Now

Indy Chamber votes to oppose state gay marriage ban

Jon Murray
The Indianapolis Star
Megan Robertson, Freedom Indiana campaign manager, speaks Aug. 21, 2013, at an event to launch a campaign that opposes adding a prohibition on same-sex marriage to the Indiana Constitution.
  • Indiana added a prohibition on same-sex marriage to its statutes in 1997
  • Some state lawmakers also want to put the prohibition in the Indiana Constitution
  • Voters statewide would have to approve the constitutional amendment in a referendum next year

INDIANAPOLIS — The capital city's largest business group staked out a position Tuesday against Indiana's proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

The Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce is the latest high-profile business interest to oppose the amendment, which the General Assembly will consider for the second and final time early next year. If the legislature approves the amendment, called House Joint Resolution 6, then heads to Indiana voters in a statewide referendum in November 2014.

"The Indy Chamber is in the business of strengthening our economy and attracting top talent to our region," John Thompson, chairman of the chamber's board, said in a news release. "The proposed marriage amendment does nothing to help show the nation that Indiana is a place that welcomes all, not just some. And we must be mindful of how actions such as this will impact our competitiveness on a national and global level."

If voters approve, the amendment would expand the prohibition on gay marriage that exists in state law to include civil unions.

Two years ago, when the legislature last considered the amendment, the Indy Chamber's board issued no formal position though then-Chief Executive Roland Dorson did speak out against the measure. The group has nearly 3,000 member organizations representing 235,000 employees in central Indiana.

The chamber's executive committee voted to oppose the amendment Tuesday.

Sarah Jones of Indianapolis attends a 2007 rally at the Statehouse in Indianapolis to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Statewide, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, which is separate from the Indianapolis-area chamber, has said it plans to stay neutral on the issue, citing differing opinions among its members.

But Freedom Indiana, a coalition of local and national gay-rights groups and other interests, has attracted support and $100,000 contributions from Eli Lilly & Co. and Cummins, two Indiana corporate heavyweights. Those companies' arguments about the amendment's potential effect on their ability to recruit talent and stay competitive echo the Indy Chamber's statement.

The Indy Chamber's new position drew criticism from Executive Director Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana, an amendment supporter. He questioned the chamber's assertion that the amendment would hurt business.

"It is unfortunate that the Indy Chamber has taken this position given that, according to Kiplinger Financial Magazine, the top five states for best business growth in 2012 and 2013 all have marriage-protection amendments," Clark said. "The myth that public policy support for traditional marriage is somehow bad for business is a red herring and a scare tactic."

The Indy Chamber hasn't officially joined Freedom Indiana, a spokeswoman said. But the chamber says it will work in tandem with the new coalition to defeat HJR-6 at the Statehouse or in the statewide vote.

"We're pleased to welcome (the chamber) to the growing bipartisan coalition of parents, lawmakers, faith leaders, business owners and advocates for liberty who are standing together to make sure our state continues moving forward," said a statement from Megan Robertson, campaign manager for Indianapolis-based Freedom Indiana.

A position statement posted on the Indy Chamber's website says: "Indiana's struggles to retain its college graduates are well documented and often acknowledged in the state legislature. Its necessity to ease this "brain drain" by attracting talent on a national scale would be inhibited by adopting an unnecessary, discriminatory amendment with fading support from younger generations.

"As the only potential marriage amendment up for consideration nationwide in 2014, it is important to be mindful of the conspicuous part HJR-6 would play in portraying Indiana as a state that welcomes some, but not all, talented workers."

The Indy Chamber, in opposing the amendment, said its potential effect had not been pinned down. The organization suggested it could affect employer-provided domestic partner benefits, municipal human rights ordinances, legal contracts and other legal protections for unmarried couples, gay or straight.

The Indiana Family Institute and other pro-amendment groups have disputed those characterizations, saying the amendment's language has been tested and mirrors the wording of constitutional amendments passed in Kentucky and Wisconsin.

Featured Weekly Ad