Evansville Courier Press Against Marriage Inequality Amendment

The Evansville Courier Press has an editorial entitled “Constitutional ban on gay marriage bad for state, its economy.” You pretty automatically expect the liberal position out of, say, the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. Seems like the Evansville Courier Press is more of a crap shoot. So, it seems to be one more bit of evidence that public opinion is shifting in this area.

The editorial gives a few reasons for opposition:

1. We already have a “defense of marriage act”. All this does with respect to the possibility of gay marriage in Indiana is make it harder for hypothetical future majorities in the General Assembly to pass legislation in favor of marriage equality.

2. The second part, invalidating a legal status “substantially similar” (whatever that means) to marriage for unmarried individuals has a high potential for unintended consequences. A group of law students has apparently identified something like 600 legal provisions that could be affected.

3. It sends the wrong message. It tells gays that Indiana regards them as second class citizens; likely encouraging those with talent and skills to go elsewhere. Also, it potentially hamstrings the ability of companies and organizations that would like to offer benefits to same sex couples.

Comments

  1. jharp says

    ” likely encouraging those with talent and skills to go elsewhere”

    How could a gay person not go elsewhere? If I was gay I’ll be damned if I’d hang around.

    And I’ll likely move out of state myself once I get me kids educated. I just don’t really care to live among bigots.

  2. Stuart Swenson says

    I wonder how much the state has allocated to defend the laws which may come out of an ideology-driven legislature signed by a governor who thinks he is in a morality play. Whatever it is, I think they should double it. These laws will be jobs bills for attorneys, but trickle-down for the rest of the folks.

  3. Don Sherfick says

    The supporters of the proposed amendment, egged on by relentless claims from “Family Values” groups that it’s needed to keep “unelected activist judges” from imposing same sex marriage or anything “substantially similar”, hope everyone has forgotten than in 2007, a parade of them went to the microphone in an Indiana House Committee hearing and praised a previous version (SJR-7) for it’s moderation in not restricting future legislators, as other state amendments did. Now they’ve turned 180 degrees and muzzled our democatically elected lawmakers, too. Shouldn’t we be asking why?

Leave a Reply