Marriage issue finds Indiana

Although the gay marriage controversy is hitting the nation hard on both coasts -- notably the Massachusetts Supreme Court which ruled its state's ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional and San Francisco's unprecedented issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- the issue itself is not avoiding Middle America.\nEfforts within Indiana's House of Representatives to hear a proposal to amend Indiana's state constitution to ban same-sex marriages were blocked by Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, Ind. and chairman of the Rules Committee, who says the measure would not receive a hearing in the Democrat-controlled House, even if it passes the Republican-controlled Senate. \n "This just isn't a priority at this moment," Pelath said.\n We commend Rep. Pelath for his action, because we too believe a constitutional amendment is not only a non-priority, but is unnecessary, as well. Additionally, we are saddened to see Rep. Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington, as a supporter of the amendment (Indianapolis Star, Jan. 29).\n Indiana is already one of 37 states with laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. Bloomington, however, provides domestic partner benefits to employees of the city, and Indiana University provides domestic partner benefits for employees and students of the entire University system. \nBut Indiana does not seem to be in the middle of any judicial fiat warranting such consideration, as some would have you believe, since Marion County Superior Court Judge S. K. Reid upheld the state's ban last year.\nThe issue has drawn lines and ire between Conservatives and Liberals, but the issue of a proposed constitutional amendment -- on a state or federal level -- is an issue Conservatives and Liberals should be able to see eye-to-eye on. \nSuch an amendment completely rejects the notion of limited government. In the words of former Republican congressman Bob Barr, who authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act preventing one state from forcing another state to recognize a same-sex marriage, an amendment would be "needlessly intrusive and punitive."\nIt would print intolerance and exclusion into a document which is intended to bestow and protect basic rights. It is not a document that should be used to legitimize bigotry -- and doing so only calls into question how much respect we should give to a document the public would arbitrarily amend to suit their social wills.\nThe Constitution is simply not the right place to resolve controversial social issues on which public opinion is in sway (for further reference, please see Amendment 18 with its prohibition of alcohol and Amendment 21 with its repeal of Amendment 18).\nThe reassuring news is, regardless of the outcome, gay marriage wouldn't break the institution of marriage -- the very same institution which has survived Henry VIII, Loving v. Virginia, Elizabeth Taylor, skyrocketing divorce rates, recognized weddings between cousins, birth control and premarital sex, fashion magazines, the Internet, reality television and Britney's walk down the altar to annulment in Las Vegas. Marriage will live to see another pair of "I do's." It always has and always will.