Cummings and Other major Companies in Indianapolis:'Gay marriage ban bad for business'

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Executives from two of Indiana's most prominent
 companies told a state Senate committee on Wednesday that their ability
to recruit top employees could be hurt by a proposed constitutional
amendment that would ban gay marriage and civil unions.

Supporters countered by telling the Senate Judiciary
Committee that the amendment would not restrict
employers from offering insurance or other benefits
 to same-sex partners as some already do, even
 though current state law defines marriage as between
 one man and one woman.
The committee heard more than two hours of public
 testimony, but delayed a vote on whether to send
 the proposed amendment to the full Senate until
next week.
James Bopp, a Terre Haute attorney who has been
active in gay marriage ban efforts in several states,
said the constitutional amendment was needed to
 prevent "activist judges" from overturning the
 state law.
"It is just foolish to ignore the danger when there
 are ready remedies available," Bopp said. "If the
people of the state of Indiana don't want to protect
marriage between a man and a woman, then they
will defeat this amendment."
Several opponents told the committee they
believed the amendment would write discrimination
 into the state's constitution.
That perception is a worry for companies that are
competing nationally to attract highly skilled workers
 to Indiana, said Jill Cook, vice president of human
resources for engine maker Cummins Inc.
She said putting a gay marriage ban in the state
constitution would "cause irreparable harm"
to Indiana's business climate and complicate the
company's decisions on where to locate some
high-paying professional jobs.
"We will be reluctant to add those jobs if Indiana
 is a less welcoming and inclusive place for all of
our employees," Cook said.
Shaun Hawkins, chief diversity officer for Eli Lilly
and Co., said attorneys for the drug maker were
worried that the amendment's ban on "a legal status
 identical or substantially similar to that of marriage"
 was vague and could impair its ability to offer
 domestic partner benefits.
Committee Chairman Richard Bray, R-Martinsville,
was skeptical of any such impact on private
companies or even public institutions, such as
 universities, that offer such benefits.
"They are doing it right now under the current statute,
" Bray said. "An insurance company or an employer
 can give any benefits they wish to employees."
A similar amendment banning gay marriage passed
 the General Assembly in 2005 when Republicans
 controlled the House and Senate. But in 2006,
Democrats won control of the House and the proposal
 didn't clear the chamber again while they held
 power, so the process had to start over.
The Republican-led House voted last month in
 favor of the amendment. If the Senate approves it
 this year, it would have to pass the General Assembly
 again in 2013 or 2014 to get on the 2014 ballot
 for a statewide referendum.


http://www.necn.com