Editor, Times-Union: Tuesday, Jan. 28, the Indiana House voted on HJR3, the Marriage Protection Act. My representative, David Wolkins, in District 18, voted yes to give Hoosiers the right to vote in November. Representative Kubacki in District 22 voted no, to take away her district’s ability to vote on the issue in November. Ms. Kubacki told us at a town hall meeting last week that she looks at numbers. Thankfully, both representatives were in attendance at that meeting, each personally giving us their data. Overall 78 percent of Wolkins’ district wanted to vote on marriage, 18 percent did not and 4 percent were undecided. Kubacki’s district, she said, was 43 percent wanting to vote, 51 percent against and 6 percent undecided. I thought this discrepancy in nearly polar opposite numbers from two districts which touch each other rather unusual. So I asked Senator Ryan Mishler, who represents both of these districts in the Senate. His numbers were similar to Wolkins’ in that he had a 70 percent thus far in favor of being able to vote. Why would Representative Wolkins and Senator Mishler have such polar opposite results to Ms. Kubacki when these two house districts touch each other and the senator’s district encompasses both? For a possible answer, this led me to look at the questions on each of the three surveys. Representative Wolkins’ question read: “Do you support allowing Hoosiers to vote on an amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman?” Senator Mishler’s question reads: “Should the state constitution be amended to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prohibit legal recognition of any other marriage-like relationship?” Representative Kubacki’s question read: “Current Indiana law code IC31-11-1 states in Chapter 1: Who may marry; IC31-11-1-1 Same Sex marriage prohibited. Sec 1(a) only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female. (b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized. Do you support or oppose amending the state constitution to define what is already law?” It seems to me that the wording of Ms. Kubacki’s survey had an agenda by skewing the results through choice of wording to reflect her personal desires. In her votes this week, she leaned on that poll and took away everyone’s opportunity to vote on marriage. She voted twice: once on Monday to amend HJR3, taking it off the ballot and once on Tuesday voting against traditional marriage. It appears that Senator Mishler and Representative Wolkins wanted to hear what their constituents thought. Representative Kubacki wanted to reflect her own opinion through the wording of her question, rather than finding out what her constituents desired. It is the tale of three polls. It seems to me that Ms. Kubacki’s survey question was skewed to give the results that she wanted. District 22 deserves better representation than that. They need a representative with founding principles, not someone who blows in the wind with the polls. Lynn Howie Winona Lake, via e-mail
Posted: Friday, January 31, 2014
Article comment by:
Seems to me that Wolkins left out the 2nd sentence of the amendment in his question. Quite misleading. Also, I don't know who he polled because I sure didn't have a say. Mishler's and Kubacki's questions were far more comprehensive. Thing is, all of these questions asked the chosen pool of voters if they would support or not support the amendment. I did not see anything in there asking them if they wanted to actually vote for it. Did I miss that or was it implied? Funny how when the polls don't show what you want to see then they are skewed somehow. I wonder why it doesn't work the other way? I often wonder a lot about this county.