In addition to defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, the amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 7, states that the constitution or any other Indiana law “may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

“As a result of this uncertainty (over what the amendment’s impact might be,)” Murphy wrote, “some employees may choose to leave Indiana to work in a state where these benefits are perceived not to be threatened. Given the great lengths Lilly takes to attract and retain top talent from around the world, we oppose any legislation that might impair our ability to offer competitive employee benefits or negatively impact our recruitment and retention.”

In addition, Murphy wrote, Lilly is concerned the amendment “sends an unwelcoming signal to current and future employees making Indiana appear intolerant.”

During a hearing last week in the House on the proposed amendment, spokesmen for Cummins Inc. and WellPoint both testified that the amendment could hurt their efforts to recruit employees and could also jeopardize domestic-partner benefits. A third firm, Dow AgroSciences, sent a letter voicing similar concerns.

The proposed amendment passed the Indiana General Assembly in 2005, but must pass a second time before going to voters for their approval. The Senate approved the amendment earlier this year, and now it is awaiting action in the House.  

It is highly unusual for Lilly to weigh in on an issue with such large political and social overtones. And the fact that Lilly doesn’t usually speak out gives its comments this time even greater weight in the Statehouse.