To the Editor:
I was very disappointed to hear our new Republican State Senator Pete Miller repeating liberal talking points in his refusal to defend Indiana's marriage laws.
Unlike what the Senator said, the Marriage Protection Amendment does not take away anyone's right. It simply reaffirms our existing logical definition of marriage.
Ironically, it is Sen. Miller's opposition to protecting marriage that places the rights of future generations of Hoosier children at risk because it makes them less likely to grow up in homes with both a mom and dad. The Senator's refusal to defend the importance of husbands and wives means that he is OK with allowing radical activists to dramatically redefine marriage in Indiana, rather than turning it over to a vote of the people.
Homosexuals are free to live as they choose, and the marriage amendment does not change that, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of Indiana including what is taught concerning sex and family in our elementary schools. Children are confused enough by various sexual messages today. Let's not confuse them further by letting our laws say that two men are the same as a mom.
Senator Miller spoke as if Indiana were considering something unusual. He even repeated the scare tactic that preserving marriage as a husband and wife is somehow bad for the economy. He claimed that the marriage amendment would hurt Indiana jobs and business recruitment. Thirty-one states have amendments. He should have looked at them before siding with liberal activists opposed to family values.
Just a few months ago, CNBC profiled "America's Top States For Doing Business" using input from the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness. Nine of the top ten business-friendly states have marriage protection amendments. None has same-sex marriage. States with same sex marriage landed at the bottom of their business performance data.