This is why this issue has to be addressed with state constitution amendments

Here in Indiana, there is a front in the culture war that is particularly divisive and heated.  A piece of legislation, HJR-3, will be voted on by the general public this fall.  It would amend Indiana's constitution to affirm the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.

You can't go a day without your Facebook newsfeed being clogged up with messages to the effect that you either oppose HJR-3 or you're a hater.

Folks with that viewpoint say that such affirmation is already in our statutes, so therefore an amendment would be redundant.  Several major universities, colleges and corporations have said it would send the wrong signal about Indiana to the rest of the world and curtail the state's economic advancement.

So why is HJR-3 needed?  To prevent what just happened in Virginia: the usurpation of state law by an activist federal judge.

State Attorney General Mark Herring and Governor Terry McAuliffe, both Democrats, have said they won’t defend the state’s constitutional ban.

Herring’s office issued a statement a couple of weeks ago saying they hope it “will be a landmark ruling in Virginia on one of the most important civil rights issues of our time.”

The judge concluded that prejudice is behind Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban. “Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered,” said Wright Allen.

“We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”

The opinion also states that former directives issued by former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, to eliminate the state’s non-discrimination protections of sexual orientation,  gave rise “to suspicion of prejudice sufficient to decline to defer to the state on this matter.”

An excerpt from  the judge’s conclusion reads:

“The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry. Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country’s cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.”

 What's at stake here is whether having state legislatures means a damn thing.