It's up to them. As a believer in traditional marriage and a supporter of the law we have on the books now, I agree with the idea of protecting it against some creative judicial ruling in the future.
Now, Gov. Daniels' supporters will no doubt jump to his defense and split hairs in interpreting what he actually said. The fact is that he has publicly stated in the past he would support a constitutional amendment. Indiana's leading employers, including the company which made him a multi-millionaire, Eli Lilly, are convinced the proposed constitutional amendment is bad economically for Indiana, and that has not moved him to change his position. Instead, Daniels has chosen to pander to homo-bigoted religious extremists. That's his choice, but his ambivalence towards a fundamental issue of social justice can just as easily lead traditional Republicans like myself to cross over and vote for a Democratic candidate who takes social justice seriously. Former U.S. Rep. Jill Long Thompson, for example, has unequivocally said she opposes the amendment as unnecessary and supports civil unions for same-sex couples. Public opinion polls have also demonstrated the public's shifting opinion on this subject. It's too bad that Daniels, who likes to fashion himself as a forward-thinker, has chosen such a backward-thinking position on this issue.