To the editor:
I continue to be amazed at the number of high-profile Indiana businesses, institutions of higher learning and civic organizations climbing on the bandwagon of opposition to the proposed state constitutional amendment (HJR-3) banning same-sex marriage.
These organizations continue to mount the questionable argument that even proposing such an amendment will paint the state as a backward and intolerant society. They also claim the amendment would greatly harm the ability of corporations, universities and other potential employers to attract highly credentialed individuals in fields of the sciences, engineering, education and business critical to the future of these organizations — and the state.
As Charles Trzcinka of the Kelly School of Business at Indiana University recently pointed out, there is little factual evidence to support such claims. The arguments against the amendment might be more compelling if, for example, officials at organizations such as Cummins, Lilly, Indiana University, etc., could show conclusively they have been seriously disadvantaged in terms of large numbers of high-potential employees or students who place opposition to the proposed amendment so high on their priority list that it negates the salary, opportunity and status offered by these outstanding organizations.
I simply do not believe that is the case.
There can be little doubt that the vast number of high-potential future Indiana citizens will be in committed heterosexual relationships where opposition to the proposed amendment is arguably not very high on their priority list. Unless amendment opponents can claim high-potential, highly credentialed future citizens are somehow unique to the minority demographic committed to same sex marriages (or sympathy to same) their arguments are simply not convincing.