After campaigning on “defense of marriage,” State Rep. Rebecca Kubacki voted not once, but twice, against the defense of marriage this week.
Rep. Kubacki is showing her true colors on traditional marriage and giving voters a chance to judge her by her actions, not her words.
For the past several months, Rep. Kubacki would not say how she would vote on the marriage amendment (HJR-3). However, since Kubacki had campaigned as a conservative in House District 22, I figured she would be there when it counted to defend traditional marriage. After all, Rep. Kubacki voted for this very same marriage amendment, with identical language, in 2011. How naive I was.
When HJR-3 came to the House floor this week, Rep. Kubacki joined in the successful effort to strip the second sentence out of the Amendment. This action by Kubacki and others had two effects on the Marriage Amendment.
First, the House action will deny Hoosiers a chance to vote on the marriage amendment in this fall’s election. The House action would start the clock all over again on this proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution.
Second, the Kubacki-supported House action of removing the second sentence from HJR-3 invites future legislatures to make provision for domestic partnerships and civil unions right here in Indiana. This does not seem like a defense of marriage.
Then, after Rep. Kubacki had already done this terrible damage to HJR-3, she still turned around and voted against the weakened, final measure. That makes two votes against traditional marriage.
Without a strong marriage amendment in the Indiana Constitution, Hoosiers will also be vulnerable to lawsuits to force gay marriage upon the state, as has already happened in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Utah.
For someone who campaigned on “defense of marriage,” Rep. Kubacki has a very peculiar way of showing it.
— Anne Bonewitz
Goshen schools should learn to live within their means
The Goshen Community School board and administration have now entered the political arena by endorsing an elected official thinking of raising our tax rate through the Local Option Income Tax, or LOIT.
In a recent letter to the editor (The Goshen News, Jan. 16) by the collective members of the school board, they mention the need for this new tax money is for bus replacement and upgrading technology. This should be an ongoing need and should have been planned on an annual basis, not just now. They also mention that when the need for this new tax money is over, the tax will disappear. That is not a smart statement to make. Once a new tax is passed, it is forever.
There is also a 20-year, $17.15 million bond issue for necessary repairs/upgrades of the high school and middle school to be considered in the new school tax rate.
The Goshen Chamber of Commerce has done a great job in trying to induce industry, commercial, professionals and others to make Goshen their home. Through its effort, Goshen has become a most cohesive community.
Possible move-ins are looking for a favorable tax rate and good schools. After the poor showing and bad ratings by the state and the school board and school administration wanting a new tax, Goshen is not on the preferred list.
— Hap Williams
What was Christie’s emergency?
Regarding all the political talk about (New Jersey Gov. Chris) Christie, why has not the one question been asked: What do official highway records reveal about a need to close a portion of a bridge? Did engineers or highway control experts file a need for action? What officials need required action for repair from authorities in the highway department. What was the emergency?
— David Yoder