Is Personal Freedom in Indiana an Individual Sovereign Right protected by Constitutional provisions?
In 2011 I wrote a review published by LPIN about then proposed HJR-6, stating: “ If you think Indiana is protecting you consider the language contained in amendments to HJR-6: “The legislature has the power to define marriage and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage” : “Marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall remain permanent until death do they part”.
I have chosen to revisit the Indiana Marriage Amendment because as some may have heard there appears to be a Court ruling in essence determining government can not define marriage. We shall see what the Court determines. My point is as has always been what authority does the government including the Courts have in defining and controlling “marriage”?
The Constitutional governmental limits and individual protections are still contained in the Indiana Constitution specifically:
“No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”
The exclusive authority for Indiana Legislators to pass any “Law” is confined within the terms specified in the document and only those laws which adhere to specified provisions are laws.
“The Indiana Constitution does not contain any authority for the passage of laws which provide government control of marriage. The Amendment adding Section 38 defining marriage in civil law terms will impose unlimited government authority to define condition, limit and control marriage.”
“The Constitution is the sole source of authority, therefore current Indiana Code which defines marriage, prohibitions and any and all requirements, licenses, terms, and conditions are not authorized by any current section of the Constitution. The passage of this “Marriage” Amendment would legalize the aspects of family law which are now not authorized under the same Constitution.”
The attempt to disguise the Marriage Amendment as a vehicle to protect “marriage” dissolves when the individual determines by religion or personal beliefs what constitutes such a union. The coercion of the government to pass under the ethereal veil of “marriage protection” by enticing the public to approve an amendment of “protection” while granting the government control over marriage is inexcusable. While some of us may not seek a “traditional” lifestyle it is not up to other individuals and certainly not the government to determine who, where, when or how we wish to exercise such an individual private determination. We do not require the Court to determine that marriage is beyond the control of government at all levels. The U.S. and Indiana Constitutions already do so.