If you follow me on social media, you've heard a lot from me about the "constitutional viability" of bans on same-sex unions. Specifically, my concerns are rooted in two equal protections provisions--one federal, one state:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Constitution of the United States of America -- Amendment XIV
"The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."
Constitution of the State of Indiana -- Article I, Section 23
Over the course of my interest and involvement in the marriage equality movement in Indiana, I've asked those who advocate bans on same-sex marriage to frame their position on the topic in the context of these two constitutional provisions.
I've politely and respectfully extended this request to elected officials, policy advocates, religious figures and friends/family who I know oppose marriage equality. In all of that time, no single person--not one--has responded to my request. Even when I published widely on social media that I simply wanted an explanation and wouldn't even offer my own rebuttal, I received no responses.
My state representative, Ed Delaney (D-H86), eagerly and frequently engaged with me via email and social media on the issue. To be fair, he's opposed to bans on same-sex marriage and it's always easier for a politician to engage with a constituent when that constituent agrees with them on an issue and is rooting for their success in the legislature.
My state senator on the other hand, Scott Schneider (R-S30), is a well-known proponent of bans on same-sex marriages. Despite my very polite, very respectfully-worded letters, phone calls, emails and tweets, Sen. Schneider has declined to even acknowledge my request.
The night of HJR-3's defeat* in the Indiana Senate, the state senator for my old district--Mike Delph (R-S29)--took to Twitter to express his opinions about the relevance of his personal religious beliefs on his support for the measure. I attempted to engage with Sen. Delph, asking him to frame his support for the resolution in constitutional terms. As he continued to get his faith in my government, he declined to respond to constitutional questions from me and a number of other people.
In the wake the HJR-3 process, one thing has become abundantly clear about the reality of the political fight over marriage equality--at least in my home state, if not also nation-wide. That one thing is that the proponents of legislative or constitutional bans on same-sex marriage and/or civil unions have absolutely constitutional justification for their position. And that's why state bans are being overturned by courts left and right. Just this week we saw this occur in Kentucky and Virginia.
It'll happen eventually in Indiana, because the people who want
