NEW ALBANY — The Indiana Republican Party is faced with the decision whether to change its official platform on same-sex marriage, amid divisive stances from members within.
The platform committee is inviting input from Republicans across the state on its identifying document, as it does every two years, and the marriage debate seems to be dominating the conversation.
It's a stance national Republicans are divided on, now that same-sex marriage is legal in every state.
In Indiana, the debate rides the coattails of last year's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that gave extra protections on the basis of religion that drew criticism from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists.
The platform committee held a hearing at Indiana University Southeast in New Albany on Monday evening, its second of three public meetings that allow Republicans across the state to voice their opinions on what should stay and what should change in the party's platform.
The platform ratified in 2014 states, "We believe that strong families, based on marriage between a man and a woman, are the foundation of society."
Almost every person who spoke Monday mentioned this clause, with most asking it be removed.
Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, said many speakers at the first hearing in Greenwood focused on the topic, "on both sides of that issue."
The 32-person committee whose members are appointed by state party chairman Jeff Cardwell will gather all comments from hearings and any that are sent via email and discuss any changes to the platform. Then, the group will draft an updated version of the platform, which will either be passed or amended by almost 1,800 delegates at the state convention June 11.
Koch emphasized the conversational tone of the hearings, wherein speakers answered questions from committee members.
"It's the kind of discussion that a family has when there's a disagreement within a family," Koch said in an interview. "You usually sit at a kitchen table around a living room and talk through it, and that's what this process is about."
Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany, who has vocally supported LGBT rights, asked the committee at the very least to remove language referring to marriage as between a man and a woman.
"My preference would be for full civil rights protection," Clere said. "I think we have an opportunity to show that we are an inclusive, that we are a big tent party and that we want everyone to have an opportunity to be part of the Indiana Republican Party and all that it stands for. The more we can stay away from issues that divide us and focus instead on issues that unite us, the better and stronger we can be."
Committee member James Bopp, an attorney, asked how civil rights for LGBT people without exclusions, as Clere suggested, would affect religious rights outside of the walls of a place of worship. Would a religious wedding photographer, for example, be bound by law to photograph a same-sex wedding despite his or her moral oppositions?
"My question would be if that's your position, where is the acceptance and welcoming and inclusion of people of faith in our platform when we're telling them that even though their religion requires them to live their life, not just how they worship in a church ... but you're going to have the state attack them on that?" Bopp said, adding the state would "be free to trample all over religious views."
Clere suggested substituting any other currently protected class in these kinds of scenarios as a litmus test. If the law would protect that class, it should also protect LGBT people, he argued.
New Albany City Councilman Dave Barksdale also asked that the "divisive language" regarding marriage be removed.
"On a personal note, I have a sister that is gay which I love and I respect very deeply," Barksdale said. "Just last year, she and her partner were married. Both individuals contribute greatly to our community. Between them, they have four wonderful children that are very much loved in this quote-unquote nontraditional family."
Some discussion involved divorce rates of same-sex and heterosexual marriages as well as stability of single-parent families.
New Albany City Councilman Al Knable said some of the America's strongest unions are between two people of the same sex.
Bopp suggested that the first sentence involving marriage between a man and a woman is "aspirational," and the next sentence that recognizes and supports "more diverse" and "blended" families is inclusive of same-sex couples.
Monroe County resident William Ellis, however, told the committee the platform on marriage should remain.
"When you have people upset that marriage should be between one man and one woman, I really have to question what they're upset about," Ellis said. He argued the majority of people against RFRA are the same group "using the same threats to change the Republican Party's platform and stance."
Clark County and 9th District Republican Party Chairman Jamey Noel, also a platform committee member, said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, "but I also think the government should not be sticking their nose in marriage, period."
Views on marriage in Clark County are changing, he added.
"I think it's a good thing," Noel said. "At the same time, I just want to make sure that we do include everybody but that also I don't want to get back to the days when people were persecuted for their religious beliefs, either."