IN.gov - Skip Navigation

Note: This message is displayed if (1) your browser is not standards-compliant or (2) you have you disabled CSS. Read our Policies for more information.

Indiana State Library

Library > Collections > Reference & Government Services > General Research Guides > Same Sex Marriage Same Sex Marriage

2007 Legislation In the News Links Books and documents at ISL Articles

2007 Legislation

Click on the bill to view in full

  • HJR 0015 - Definition of marriage. Provides that marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Provides that Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
  • SJR 0007 - Definition of marriage. Provides that marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Provides that Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups .

In The News

Local news items can be found on the second floor Newspaper Division.

  • Lesnick, Gavin. “Coalition raising funds to fight bans on gay marriage, adoption”. Indianapolis Star, 7 June 2006, pg. B05.
  • Ruthhart, Bill, “Marriage amendment, Round 2 - Lawmakers revisit divisive effort to solidify state's same-sex ban”. Indianapolis Star, 31 January 2007, pg. A01.
  • Schneider, Mary Beth. “Gay marriage battle returns as timely issue - Indiana GOP pushes ban in constitution”. Indianapolis Star, 27 October 2006, pg. A01.

Links

The following links have been selected to guide you beyond the library

Books and Documents @ ISL

The following books and documents are available at the Indiana State Library. Come up to the second floor Reference Desk for assistance.

Location Item
Y 4.J 89/1:108/90 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Federal Marriage Amendment: the Musgrave Amendment, Hearing HJR 56. 13 May, 2004. Washington : Government Printing Office, 2004.
Y 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.109-52 Online U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights. Less faith in judicial credit : are federal and state defense of marriage initiatives vulnerable to judicial activism?, Hearing. 13 April, 2005. Washington : Government Printing Office, 2005.
Y 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.108-813 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights. What is needed to defend the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act of 1996? : Hearing, September 4, 2003. Washington : Government Printing Office, 2005.
Y 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.108-763 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. A proposed constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage : Hearing, March 23, 2004. Washington : Government Printing Office, 2005.
Y 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.108-717 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. Judicial activism vs. democracy : what are the national implications of the Massachusetts Goodridge decision and the judicial invalidation of traditional marriage laws? : Hearing, March 3, 2004. Washington : Government Printing Office, 2005.
Y 1.1/8:108-614 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Marriage Protection Act of 2004 : report together with dissenting views (to accompany H.R. 3313) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). Washington: Government Printing Office, 2004.
Y 4.J 89/1:108/92 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee the Constitution. Limiting federal court jurisdiction to protect marriage the states : Hearing, 24 June, 2004. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2004.
Y 4.J 89/1:108/70 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution. Defense of Marriage Act : Hearing, March 30, 2004. Washington : Government Printing Office, 2004.
Y 4.J 89/1:108/76 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution. Legal threats to traditional marriage : implications for public policy, Hearing, April 22, 2004. Washington : U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004.
Y 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.104-533 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. The Defense of Marriage Act : Hearing, July 11, 1996. Washington : Government Printing Office, 1996.

Other Articles available in full text through the INSPIRE databases or in print at the Indiana State Library (see ISL call number). back to top

Davis, Cynthia M. "The great divorce of government and marriage: Changing the nature of the gay marriage debate". Marquette Law Review, Summer2006, Vol. 89 Issue 4, pgs. 795-819. The article reflects on the debate over same-sex marriage in the United States. Wisconsin voters will be voting on a state constitutional amendment that limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman and that denies legal status identical to marriage for unmarried individuals. This recognizes the importance of government protection of marriage rather than government promotion of marriage.
Goodman, Christie. "Debating gay marriage". State Legislatures, Feb2005, Vol. 31 Issue 2, pg. 31. (JK2403 .S765) Focuses on controversies surrounding the legalization of same sex marriage in U.S. states. Total number of states with constitutional provisions defining marriage as only between a man and a woman; Introduction of a legislation calling for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage in South Carolina and Virginia; Other countries with laws permitting same sex marriage or giving partners the same or similar benefits as those in heterosexual unions.
Minor, Bob. "Marriage amendments assault religious freedom". Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, Sep/Oct2006, Vol. 13 Issue 5, pgs. 5-6. The article focuses on political debates concerning the issue of same-sex marriage. The author argues that same-sex marriage proponents would benefit by discussing the issue in religious terms. According to the author, marriage has cultural associations with religion and religious practice. He believes that same-sex marriage proponents should argue that by advocating for an amendment to the United States Constitution to sharply define marriage as restricted to one male and one female partner, same sex marriage opponents are prohibiting the freedom of religion. The author cites several religious groups that have affirmed the right of same-sex couples to marry including: Unitarian Universalists, The United Church of Christ and the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

Created by: M. Howell
Last update: February 2012