I’m amazed at how many don’t understand the difference between civil marriage—the one that government sanctions—and religious marriage, the one ordained by religious institutions [Maurer Commentary, May 27]. I hear a lot about an irrational fear of “changing the definition” of marriage.
Marriage has always meant the combining of two or more things to make one. We have a marriage of ideas. When foods (like chili) cook long and slow, they taste better. Why? Because the flavors have been allowed to marry, of course.
Waiting tables in restaurants while in college, we would have to go around and collect all the ketchup bottles and consolidate the partial bottles into single bottles. It was a chore called, yes, marrying the ketchup.
If marriage is good enough for an idea, chili or ketchup, why not two consenting adults in a committed, loving relationship?
It’s upsetting enough that legislators would deface our Constitution by enshrining in it what is clearly discrimination, but it’s even more shameful when you think about what this says about our Legislature. It shows a blatant misunderstanding of our Constitution.
The Constitution should only be amended to make permanent who we are as Hoosiers. What they are trying to do is to set into concrete who we were as Hoosiers.
Amending the constitution should never be used to freeze society and hold it to a dying idea, forcing future generations to live in a snapshot in history. But thankfully, public opinion is swinging faster than they can get this amendment on the ballot.
City-County councilor at-large