House takes sensible action

It will never qualify as a profile in courage, but action this week by the Indiana House on HJR 3 makes sense in both practical and political terms.
When you’re in a tough situation, sometimes you have to punt. And the House punted.
Clearly, public opinion on the issue of gay marriage is evolving, and doing so more rapidly than anyone could have imagined.
As more and more people learn the possible ban on gay marriage has an impact on people they know or are related to, the more they want to rethink the issue. And the notion of amending the state constitution seems less and less appropriate.
That was especially true for the second phrase in HJR 3, which would have banned civil unions.
Proponents of HJR 3 think of civil unions as gay marriage by another name. Outspoken advocates of gay marriage believe civil unions consign homosexuals to second-class citizenship.
But most of the public falls somewhere between those positions, and thoughtful lawmakers realized that — as it was written and first approved three years ago — HJR 3 would be a mistake.
Some of them also probably calculated that putting the potential constitutional amendment on the ballot in November would give them headaches at the polls they neither wanted nor needed.
Tuesday’s vote gave them a chance to punt the issue to another session of the legislature. Not courageous, but a sensible course of action.
Now what remains to be seen is how quickly Hoosier public opinion continues to evolve. Our guess is that a future equivalent to HJR 3 is going to face a chilly reception. —J.R.[[In-content Ad]]