Editor, Times-Union: Rebecca Kubacki will probably say this is “hateful,” I’d rather call it “truthful.” Last week, we heard her explain her vote on the marriage amendment. She said when she first voted for it in 2011, it was later changed and that’s why she voted against it in 2014. We now know the truth. At Warsaw’s Freedom Rally, Eric Miller explained the history of the bill. This non-partisan report on the sequence of this legislation demonstrated that Kubacki voted for the very same bill in 2011 that she voted against in 2014. It never went to a conference committee. Her first 2011 vote had both sentences. Last week we saw a news release where both the Indiana Family Institute and the American Family Association made a joint statement which was titled “Kubacki Making Historically False Claims,” referencing her vote on the marriage amendment. This joint news release states how Kubacki argued during a Feb. 28, 2014, meeting that the legislation she voted for in 2011 had only one sentence. She repeated this same argument at last week’s Chamber of Commerce Meet the Candidate event. I appreciate the recent reports correcting Kubacki’s version of history. It really isn’t that difficult to figure out the truth. A Fox News Radio article, dated Feb. 15, 2011 (“Indiana House Endorse Gay Marriage Ban” by wibc.com) confirms that the same bill that passed in the House went to the Senate and if passed, would simply need to pass the General Assembly again in 2013 or 2014 before it would go on a statewide ballot. I could accept this better if Kubacki simply explained why she voted against, in 2014, the same bill she voted for in 2011. Instead, we hear her twist history. And if it wasn’t bad enough to be caught in a lie, in this Sunday’s Elkhart Truth, Kubacki is quoted as saying, “To me, it’s a matter of the Constitution. We leave it alone,” Kubacki said. “The Constitution is there to protect us from super majorities.” The problem I have with that argument is that three days after she voted against the marriage amendment, she voted to change Indiana’s Constitution to include hunting rights. To me, this seems like a candidate desperate to conceal her voting record. I’m wondering, what will she do next to get reelected? So for District 22, I’d like to say, “Choose Wisely, Vote Nisly.” Bruce Prosser Warsaw, via email
