To the editor,
of the arguments against HJR 3 or HJR 6 (whatever it’s called today) is
that it’s not needed because an existing state law already says the
same thing. That is a disingenuous argument because the gay marriage
proponents are counting on their ability to find a sympathetic judge
somewhere to eventually overturn the state law, which is a lot easier to
do than repealing a Constitutional amendment. Just why are the same sex
marriage supporters so afraid to let the Indiana voters have their say?
an old rule of thumb that if you want to know the consequences of any
particular action, you should project it out to its ultimate logical
conclusion, no matter how extreme or ridiculous it may seem. So, once
marriage becomes something other than just one man and one women, then
where do you stop? Three men? Four women? Two men and two women? A man
and his dog? That’s ludicrous you say. Really? Why? What would be the
argument against it? It won’t happen next year, or maybe even next
decade, but it will come.