Letter to my representative:

Dear Sir,

I write to you today in concern for this business with the SJR7 Amendment.

Section 38. (a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

I dearly wish it went without saying that something like this shouldn’t be passed. It would hurt far too many people. The passage of this amendment would invalidate domestic violence protections for unmarried couples. I understand that there are over 124, 000 unmarried couples in Indiana (a fair number of them being senior citizens who choose not to remarry for financial or personal reasons), and that 46.5% of domestic perpetrators in this state are a woman’s live-in friend or boyfriend (and that isn’t even bringing up the issue that there are also men who suffer domestic abuse, be the perpetrator male or female.) The damage done to a person by such things is not affected by whether a person is married or not, therefore there is no good reason why the protection of them should be.

It would also jeopardize the right of unmarried people to adopt children (of whom there are 2,500 waiting for a home in a loving environment in Indiana). Should it not go without saying that a caring and nurturing parent is far more important than a married one? I understand that it has been suggested in courts in relation to adoption by unmarried people that child rearing is a major function of marriage. While it may be a function of it, that in no way means that marriage makes anyone more wise or responsible than a person who is not. Marriage alone does not make for good parents and it very much seems to me that people often mistakenly assume otherwise.

Also, this amendment ignores the rights of the LGBT community, which, as a bisexual and a human being, I naturally enough have an interest in. As a species we must grow both mentally and spiritually, and refusing to recognize that love is love regardless of the body a person happens to be born into is a marked step backward. To coin a phrase, the right to express ones love and devotion through marriage should be a human right, and a legal right, not a Religious Right.

To conclude: this amendment is neither just nor fair for the reasons listed above, and would not be in the best interest of the people of Indiana (or, for that matter, America). I hope you will take this into consideration when you vote, and do the right thing--vote against it.

Sincerely,

Sarah E. Knott