Editor, Times-Union: I am a candidate for District 22, Indiana House of Representatives. I appreciate, again, the chance to express my point of view and what action I would take on important legislation. In the upcoming legislative session a bill will be likely be presented for the Indiana Constitution to be amended to declare that marriage is between a man and a woman. A second sentence essentially provides that any legal status akin to same-sex marriage would also be invalid, thus making civil unions impermissible. I oppose this endeavor and would vote against it. The public is entitled to know my reasoning. State law already defines a marriage as between a man and a woman. Thus a constitutional amendment is unnecessary. This proposed amendment is designed to thwart any later legislative endeavors which might recognize same-sex marriage or confer civil union status to same-sex relationships. The second part of the proposed amendment would likely provoke protracted litigation pitting the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against the state constitutional amendment. Granted the proposed amendment would be put to a public referendum on the November 2014 ballot where the voters may express themselves on the subject. The point is the voters have already done so through their elected legislators. The proponents of the amendment, at base, express a grave distrust in the potential future actions of the legislature and the possibility that both state and federal appellate courts may declare Indiana’s current law unconstitutional. Rather than avoiding legal battles, it is quite possible the amendment may invite them. I express a second concern. Using the constitutional amendment process in an attempt to resolve hot button cultural issues may set a dangerous precedent which might later put current cherished values in danger. If the amendment process is to be used to express current public will on social and moral issues, what might happen when the public and those in power seek to memorialize principles contrary to long-held values? Let me explain by way of example. Years ago I appeared before a local town counsel as an attorney for my local church. Our goal was to vacate (remove) a public easement which divided our church from its parking lot. It presented obvious dangers to our parishioners. The town council was convened and was opened with Christian prayer, with the orator closing in the name of Jesus. I personally agreed with the prayer itself, but it troubled me. Here is why. What if the day were to come when the council opened in prayer in the name of Buddha or … one can fill in the blank for many supposed deities or iconic leaders? I think the danger and the intrusion is apparent. In my view our culture thrives religiously to the degree that government stays out of religion, not interjects itself into it. In the same way using constitutional amendments in an attempt to put moral debates to rest may actually serve to sharpen the debate and puts all values on the table for constitutional intervention. This strategy does not at all seem consistent with the point of state and federal constitutions as envisioned by our founders. Constitutions serve to limit the power of government, not inject it into social and religious debates. I express a final concern. Proponents of this amendment demonstrate a subtle rejection of our democratic system. They fear the move of the culture and the tolerance evident in the younger generation. They think that by enacting the amendment the move of the culture will be modified. But they must know, as well as any, that cultural changes cannot be forced from the top down unless anti-democratic authoritarian constraints are exerted, at the cost of democracy. Indeed our system is messy and adversarial sometimes but in order to survive as a free society we must have faith that the people will figure things out without the force of black letter amendments. For these reasons I would vote against the amendment. David C. Kolbe Warsaw, via e-mail
