The proposed amendment
Here is the wording of House Joint Resolution 3, which includes what would be in an Indiana constitutional amendment: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”
For the defenders of a traditional, one-man/one-woman definition of state-sanctioned marriage, there’s no protection like constitutional protection.

So goes the argument now roiling at the Indiana Statehouse. On Monday, supporters of House Joint Resolution 3 — a proposal to add the state’s marriage definition to the Indiana Constitution — said state law wasn’t enough to stop a judicial onslaught by those pressing for the right to same-sex marriage. Let the people decide, not unelected judges, they told members of the House Judiciary Committee.

But apparently, that’s not enough. Apparently, simply putting something into a state constitution isn’t enough to automatically make something constitutional.
Copyright © 2024 www.jconline.com