One of the arguments against HJR 3 or HJR 6 (or 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? There’s 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 woman, 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.