Until the nation's largest state validated a basic right for gay couples, it appeared that the morals militia Miller leads was unlikely to muster another push toward a constitutional amendment to "defend marriage" in Indiana.
After failing to get the measure through the required two consecutive legislatures, Miller had moved over to the property tax bandwagon. Gay couples, meanwhile, continued to live together, and rear children, and be denied marriage under state law, and all was safe in the heterosexual bedrooms and divorce courts of Hoosier values. The Indiana General Assembly could look around for other work to do.
Now, however, the Great Fear has become available for whipping up again, and crusaders such as Miller, state Rep. Eric Turner and Rep. Brian Bosma are mounted and helmeted anew. The cannons of pious rhetoric and preposterous stereotypes are firing. The roaring rallies in opposition to unseen enemies who perpetrate domesticity are in our near future. The re-election campaigns have their visceral alternative to complex issues.
Darn those activist judges. What do they think they are, a branch of government?
Well, we can't stop Miller, Bosma, Turner et al. from being the fear mongers they are on this issue, but we can continue to focus attention on what the full impact of what they propose to do in the form of a constitutional amendment is. The proponents of SJR-7 continually assured state lawmakers that the surplus language included in the second paragraph of their amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages really didn't have any extra meaning. Now, those darn activist judges up in Michigan decided such extra language does have extra meaning. The Michigan Supreme Court says it means universities and units of government cannot extend domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples. But Miller says that's Michigan and their language is different from Indiana's SJR-7. Yes, just like Indiana's law on equal protection is different from California's.