As a community newspaper, we don’t feel it’s our place to decide whether gay marriage is good or bad.
We’re confident in saying, however, that the push to make a prohibition against it part of Indiana’s Constitution, better known as House Joint Resolution 3 — HJR-3, for the Twitter-savvy — is bad.
As a reminder, gay marriage is already illegal in Indiana under the state’s 2004 Defense of Marriage Act. Any federal action on the subject will overrule both that act and the proposed amendment.
The goal of this amendment, then, is simple: to make it more difficult for a right stripped from many Hoosiers to be restored. That’s it. And that’s wrong, regardless of our personal religious or political views.
The goal of government is to empower and enable its citizens. The state has decided that right now a ban on gay marriage is the best way to do that.
To say future legislatures would be wrong in attempting to reverse that decision — so wrong that they must be protected from themselves in the form of a change to the very document that defines the state — is a staggering vote of no confidence for the future of Indiana and its citizens.
What’s more, if a future legislature makes that decision, it will have equal power to amend the Constitution. It will simply have to wait until the measure is passed by two separately-elected assemblies and by voters.
This is obstructionism at its most blatant.
This is all to say nothing of the public relations battle, which Indiana is losing, and hard.
Each time the General Assembly’s committees have heard testimony on HRJ-3, business leaders, academics and other experts in development have told them young professionals will not want to move to the state if it so demonstratively proves its intolerance. That desire cuts across political ideologies, races and sexual preferences.
Even discussing the issue is proving a turn-off for some. For Hoosier leaders, who claim to be among the most aggressive in the nation in bringing new business, even bringing this decision before the voters in November is a losing proposition.
Further, ignoring the message sent by young professionals is perhaps a greater vote of no confidence. Do legislators believe the next generation of businesspeople, teachers and civic leaders will simply change their minds about this issue and become Hoosiers?
We think supporters of this amendment at the statehouse and here in Grant County might be surprised by what their own kids, nieces, nephews and grandkids might tell them.
If they don’t listen, they’re saying something more damning: We don’t care what you think. We’re not interested in bringing more job opportunities and educated decision-makers to our state. We’re content to make Indiana the land of the intolerant and bury our heads in the sand until the feds come calling.
Some legislators apparently get this: we applaud the House Judiciary Committee, which hosted the first public hearing on HJR-3 last week and turned against the amendment after three-and-a-half-hours of strident testimony.
Even after Speaker of the House Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) moved the proposal to the House Election Committee — a move we’ll call sketchy and leave it at that — it passed only 9-3 late Wednesday afternoon.
To the members of the General Assembly who continue to support HJR-3, know this: discussing this amendment is damaging Indiana now.
Passing it would damage Hoosiers for years to come.