Seeking marriage clarity from editors
I am writing for clarification from the Kokomo Tribune editorial board, whose recent piece, “Amendment isn’t needed,” encouraged Indiana lawmakers to deny the people of Indiana their right to determine the constitutionality of un-defining marriage in the state.
The KT editors, one of whom has previously written that upholding marriage laws in Indiana is “codifying inequality,” write that, “Indiana law already bans same sex marriage … there is no need for a constitutional amendment.” Are the KT editors unaware that states like California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and New Jersey had similar laws before activist state courts struck them down as “unconstitutional”?
The whole purpose of the Indiana Marriage Amendment is to prevent gay activists from using Indiana courts to do the same. The KT editors pretend they don’t know that.
Secondly, the KT editors throw out the classic gay activist red herring of citing companies like Eli Lilly and Cummins Engine — both of whom have boards of directors dominated by radical, anti-family activists — who falsely suggest that a marriage amendment would hurt the business climate in the state. Kiplinger Financial Magazine reports that the top five states for job growth all have marriage protection amendments. Forbes Magazine reveals that 9 out of the top 10 large cities in America for job growth come from states with marriage protection amendments. The KT editors pretend they don’t know that.
Finally, the KT editors claim they simply want to call a truce on the issue. I’m calling their bluff. A truce must go both ways.
So will the KT editors write a similar editorial that tells homosexual activists to cease any and all court challenges to Indiana’s law regarding same sex marriage? Will they demand that homosexual activists respect marriage in the state and not seek to change it by judicial fiat? If not, readers should be aware the KT editors are deceiving them.