Unhappy with Sen. Miller's stand on marriage

To the Editor:

I was very disappointed to hear our new Republican State Senator Pete Miller repeating very liberal talking points in his refusal to defend Indiana's marriage laws.

Unlike what the senator said, the Marriage Protection Amendment does not take away anyone's right. It simply reaffirms our existing logical definition of marriage.

Ironically, it is Sen. Miller's opposition to protecting marriage that places the rights of future generations of Hoosier children at risk because it makes them less likely to grow up in homes with both a mom and a dad. The senator's refusal to defend the importance of husbands and wives means that he is OK with allowing radical activists to dramatically redefine marriage in Indiana, rather than turning it over to a vote of the people.

Homosexuals are free to live as they choose, and the marriage amendment does not change that, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of Indiana including what is taught concerning sex and family in our elementary schools. Children are confused enough by various sexual messages today. Let's not confuse them further by letting our laws say that two men are the same as a mom.

Senator Miller spoke as if Indiana were considering something unusual. He even repeated the scare tactic that preserving marriage as a husband and wife is somehow bad for the economy. He claimed that the marriage amendment would hurt Indiana jobs and business recruitment. Thirty-one states have amendments. He should have looked at them before siding with the liberal activities opposed to family values.

Just a few months ago, CNBC profiled "America's Top States for Doing Business" using input from the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council of Competitiveness. Nine of the top 10 business friendly states have marriage protection amendments. None has same-sex marriage. States with same-sex marriage landed at the bottom of their business performance data.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently looked at the top states for middle-income job growth. Seven of the top 10states have Marriage Protection Amendments; none have same-sex marriage. Likewise the Bureau of Economic Analysis looked at states with the highest growth in personal income between 2000 and 2010. Eight of the top 10 states have marriage amendments; none have same-sex marriage.

CEO Magazine recently surveyed 543 chief executive officers asking them to rank the best and worst states for business and job growth. All of the top five have marriage protection amendments. Four of the five worst business environment states must have agreed with Miller's advisors. They refused to protect marriage and have civil unions or court ordered same-sex marriage.

Simply put, if Senator Miller will not stand up for natural marriage, he should least stop listening to liberals and allow Hoosiers to decide this issue by supporting passage of the amendment, which places it on the ballot next November.

Gary D. Houser

Danville