"Any law that restricts the application of the constitution is completely bogus. The constitution provides a framework for the legislation of Indiana. It's above the law. So how can legislators be allowed to change it so that it doesn't apply in certain cases? After stating that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, the bill states, "this constitution ... may not be construed to require that marriage status or the incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples." Rephrased, that says the Indiana Constitution (and thus the included bill of rights) can't be used to argue that unmarried couples - including homosexuals who have not been allowed to marry - have the right to either be married or achieve a status similar to marriage. The bill effectively says that a gay marriage ban can't be declared unconstitutional, giving lawmakers a way to get around the Bill of Rights. If what the law does is right, then why should legislators need to add a loophole to the Bill of Rights in order to achieve it?
It's alarming that some of Indiana's legislators do not understand that the constitution is above the law and is not a political plaything." -- Thomas Nolan in the Purdue Exponent article "Proposed change does not belong in the bill of rights"