A bill is currently wending its way through the Indiana General Assembly that, if finally passed, would allow voters to decide if the Indiana Constitution should be amended to prevent gay couples from marrying each other. So what would be the actual, practical results if this bill passes and the voters decide to constitutionally ban gay marriage in the state, compared to what would happen if they didn't?
If it passes and the voters approve it, gay couples will not be able to legally marry in Indiana. Marriage would be defined as existing only between one man and one woman. Gay couples who are prevented from marrying will have their rights trampled upon simply because a majority of people in Indiana decided they were not worthy enough as human beings to have that privilege.
But what if the General Assembly doesn't pass the bill or the voters turn it down? Then what? Well, due to existing state law, gay couples will not be able to legally marry in Indiana. Marriage is already defined as existing only between one man and one woman. Gay couples who are prevented from marrying already have their rights trampled upon simply because the law is already on the books. So, in other words, little difference would be noticed.
But what about the enhanced protection that having the law inscribed in the constitution would provide? Well, if (actually when) the U.S. Supreme Court determines that such state measures violate the U.S. Constitution, it won't matter whether it's in the state constitution or just a law. If these laws are violations, they will be found null and void. Period.
So my question is what's the point in taking up legislative time to pass this bill since it will make zero difference in practicality and will eventually be struck down anyway? I want some conservative out there who supports the amendment to explain this to me?