As attorney colleagues of Indianapolis Star contributor Sheila Suess Kennedy, we take serious exception to Chris Stovall’s insinuations (“Get facts straight on same-sex issue”, Feb 15) that her February 13th commentary (“Sex, lies and politics”) comes anywhere close to violating the ethical rules governing Indiana lawyers. While Mr. Stovall is free to disagree with Ms. Kennedy’s views, his suggestion that her opinions are outside the bounds of the professional ethical standards governing attorneys is a form of rhetorical thuggery that undermines civil discourse and the cogency of his own arguments.

Mr. Stovall is an out-of-state advocate for amendments on marriage like SJR-7, currently before our legislature. Ms. Kennedy is making a zealous case for the proposition that passage of SJR7 will wipe out existing laws that bestow even a few “marriage-like” benefits such as domestic violence protections and domestic partner benefits, as has taken place in Michigan and Ohio under their own amendments. Proponents there also gave assurances that those amendments would only prohibit the state from recognizing gay marriage and then retreated in silence when courts interpreted ambiguous language to impact other rights and benefits.

The second paragraph of SJR-7 says: “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.” What is most disturbing about Mr. Stovall’s piece is his pulling out of thin air his “Law 101” definition of “construe”, insisting that it only applies when a statute is unclear. But this does not apply when, as would happen if SJR-7 were to be enacted, a judge would be told by the constitution itself NOT to construe a law a certain way. The public has differing opinions on same-sex marriage, civil unions, and related benefits. But all should be concerned over the current frenzy to ram through a proposal, the meaning of which even its proponents are in disagreement over. The should also be concerned over recent attempts to recklessly tinker with current Domestic violence protections to bolster their arguments on SJR-7.

Colleagues of Mr. Stovall urge the legislature to just pass off the whole mess to the voters and abdicate their responsibility to carefully consider and craft clear language worthy of what the drafters of our 1851 Constitution had in mind when they required two separate legislatures pass a proposed amendment before sending it to the people. Our lawmakers ought not to push this solemn duty off simply to satisfy a partisan political need to energize a constituent base in the November 2008 presidential elections. Moreover, attacks by a paid, out-of-state advocate on the integrity of a respectable public servant such as Ms. Kennedy are reprehensible and far beyond what should pass as acceptable public discourse.

by Kerry Blomquist, Bil Groth, Robb Minich, and Don Sherfick

login or register to post comments