Everyone's favorite local political AM talk radio host (which pretty much narrows it down to one person, but I digress) has spoken out in support of the system we have to get proposed amendments on voting ballots. But I disagree with most efforts of direct democracy, including this one.
Even though various polls have indicated that attitudes to LGBT peoples are changing along generational lines, that's a generational change, and isn't likely to factor into political decisions within the next several years.
It's no secret that young people, who probably have some of the most open attitudes when it comes regarding marriage , are not big on voting. This gives proponents of the proposed amendment a huge advantage, simply because the age demographics of current voting trends are on their side.
Social conservatives have shown that when their issues aren't addressed in campaigns, they simply won't vote. And when their issues are addressed, they come out in droves. There's another advantage to the proponents.
Finally, I think it's easier to be "for" something rather than against, especially when it comes to voting. Those who are for this proposed, discriminatory amendment likely place this high up on their issues of voting. Whereas opponents of the amendment might be opposed to it, but there are issues they prioritize over it.
The opponents of this proposed amendment will have a lot of work cut out for them. It could mean driving people, particularly young people, to the polls in an off-year election. It could mean having to suck up to some of the big corporations that have spoken out against this amendment. They've got a few years to work on a strategy, but you'll need more than rallies at the Indiana Statehouse to defeat this.
EDIT: It has come to my attention that there is some confusion on how a joint resolution becomes an amendment to the Indiana Constitution.
A proposed amendment has to pass two separately elected legislative sessions. This means that the legislators who were voted into office November 2010 can pass a joint resolution in either the 2011 session or 2012 session, and then have to pass an identical resolution in 2013 or 2014. If it passes, it goes to a popular vote as a referendum. If it passes the referendum process, it becomes part of the state constitution. The soonest it could be on the ballot is 2013, though I find it hard to imagine that they'd want to hold it in an off-year election where not even municipal elections would be held. Thus, the likely vote on this, if it makes it to the referendum process, would be the 2014 November midterm elections.