Ed Team

Quote of the day

Filed By Ed Team | February 22, 2007 6:19 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Quote of the Day
Tags: amendment, civil rights, constitutional amendment, Purdue, SJR-7

"Any law that restricts the application of the constitution is completely bogus. The constitution provides a framework for the legislation of Indiana. It's above the law. So how can legislators be allowed to change it so that it doesn't apply in certain cases? After stating that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, the bill states, "this constitution ... may not be construed to require that marriage status or the incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples." Rephrased, that says the Indiana Constitution (and thus the included bill of rights) can't be used to argue that unmarried couples - including homosexuals who have not been allowed to marry - have the right to either be married or achieve a status similar to marriage. The bill effectively says that a gay marriage ban can't be declared unconstitutional, giving lawmakers a way to get around the Bill of Rights. If what the law does is right, then why should legislators need to add a loophole to the Bill of Rights in order to achieve it?

It's alarming that some of Indiana's legislators do not understand that the constitution is above the law and is not a political plaything." -- Thomas Nolan in the Purdue Exponent article "Proposed change does not belong in the bill of rights"


Recent Entries Filed under Quote of the Day:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Bil, I'm as much opposed to SJR7 as you are, but the "bill" proposing an amendment to the Indiana Constitution isn't just any old "bill", that if passed, would be governed by that constitution. If it were enacted by the people, it would be a part of that constitution. Perhaps a judge might try to balance it with something else, but generally newer amendments take precedence over anything older that is contrary. Awful, ill-advised, mean-spirited, yes.....unconstitutional under the Indiana constitution.....highly unlikely. Now so far as being unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, that's another story, as the Nebraska case may well lead.