You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

Editorial columns

  • Ukraine needs world’s support in thwarting Russia
    After the “anschluss” of Crimea, the Kremlin proceeded in its war on Ukraine with a covert operation in our eastern regions. Russia is sticking to the same routine as in Crimea.
  • ‘STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY’
    I am not for containment in Iran. Let me repeat that, since no one seems to be listening closely: I am unequivocally not for containing Iran. I am also not for announcing that the United States should never contain Iran.
  • School standards receiving rushed treatment
    It’s Holy Week, during which Christians both mourn and celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, culminating in Easter on Sunday.Gov.
Advertisement
Gay marriage timeline
July 2000: Vermont allows civil unions for same-sex couples.
November 2003: Massachusetts court rules “the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one’s choice.”
January 2004: Ohio legislature approves bill banning gay marriage and prohibiting state employees from domestic-partner benefits.
April 2009: Gay marriage OK’d in Vermont, the first legislature to do so.
June 2009: President Barack Obama extends benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
February-March 2011: Indiana General Assembly votes to place a gay-marriage ban in state constitution. The measure would need to be passed again in the 2014 session then be approved by voters to change the constitution.
May 2012: Obama says he believes gay couples should be allowed to marry. North Carolina voters approve a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, becoming the 30th state to do so.
November 2012: Washington, Maine and Maryland become the first states to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote.
June 2013: The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law. A second decision allowed gay marriage in California.
November 2013: Illinois passes gay-marriage bill. Hawaii’s governor signs bill legalizing gay marriage.

‘A fight not worth having’

The Indiana State Legislature will soon decide whether to send House Joint Resolution 6 to public referendum in November 2014 to possibly amend the Indiana State Constitution. The amendment reads “only marriage between (1) man and one (1) woman will be valid or recognized in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” I do not disparage the beliefs of anyone on either side of this issue. However, is it a good idea to bring this to public referendum to amend the constitution?

Indiana already has a law stating only a man can marry a woman and only a woman can marry a man. The amendment would change nothing now. The amendment would prohibit future legislatures from changing the law if citizens want it changed. It also would prohibit some possible future compromise on civil unions that would be satisfactory to citizens on both sides of the issue. Public opinion has been changing on this issue, particularly among young people. Issues where public opinion can evolve should be in the province of the legislature to debate and possibly change law, not set in stone in the constitution.

Eli Lilly and Cummins Engine oppose the amendment because they believe it will adversely affect their ability to recruit new employees. The Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce – with 3,000 businesses – opposes HJR6 because it believes it is bad for business. Young professionals with job opportunities in multiple states might rule out Indiana because of this. College students might choose to study elsewhere, making it less likely they will locate in Indiana on graduation. Current citizens might choose to leave Indiana if HJR6 passes. We need to be a state that welcomes all to attract the next generation of talent we need to fill the high-paying jobs of the future.

It is tempting to “let the people decide,” but even putting the issue on the ballot at public referendum has downsides. This highly charged social issue will ignite an inflammatory multimillion dollar aerial ad war that will make the dogfights over London in World War II seem tame. The campaigns will likely degenerate into insinuations that some who support the amendment are bigots and some who oppose it are immoral. National attention will focus on Indiana and portray it in a bad light. State and local government have many more important issues they must concentrate on now, such as the economy, public safety, infrastructure and education.

Ultimately, I believe public opinion is changing in Indiana, and the amendment would be defeated at referendum. Therefore, that would not accomplish anything. Even if the amendment passes, little would change now in present law or behavior, so nothing is won. I do not believe the fight is worth it if it causes us to lose even one young professional we need for our economy. I do not believe the fight is worth having if it engenders bitterness and makes even one person feel unwelcome in Indiana. A fight not worth winning is a fight not worth having. I believe it would be better policy to declare a legislative truce on this issue, and the legislature should decide not to put the amendment on the ballot.

John Crawford is a Fort Wayne city councilman. He wrote this for The Journal Gazette. – Research by Tom Pellegrene, the Journal Gazette

Advertisement