According to the Indianapolis Star, the wingnuts are making another run at the Constitution with respect to gay marriage. Reps Eric Turner and David Cheatham are introducing legislation to put a gay marriage ban into the Indiana Constitution. Such an effort was defeated in 2007 and 2008, but apparently extremism in defense of bigotry is no vice. So, they will try again.
The single best thing about that article was that the Indianapolis Star put “pro-family” in scare quotes.
In one sense, I guess, this ongoing discussion about gay marriage has been productive. When I first began considering it, I was luke warm in favor of civil unions, but mostly apathetic to the whole cause. Now, I am to the point where I suspect that depriving gay couples of the right to marry will some day be viewed in the same light as forcing black people to drink out of separate water fountains.
So, now, I’ll go one step further. Not only should the legislature refrain from enshrining such bigotry into the Constitution. They should go ahead and repeal the “defense” of marriage act. It defends nothing. The health of my marriage is not affected one whit if my gay neighbors get married. And history will view us more favorably the sooner we stop treating gays as second class citizens.
“Wingnuts” That’s a phrase I often hear some use the other side use to describe people who post on and visit the Daily Kos. I have stated before I could care a less if gay people are allowed to marry. It seems like every time things like this come up gay marriage,people who oppose open borders their racists or biggots. In that case a whole lot of African Americans who oppose both of those positions are also biggots. The African American vote in CA. helped pass prop 8 to change the CA. constitution to prohibit gay marriage of course now those that lost whine and will try to find yet another legal way to get what they
Again it makes me no difference on the gay marriage issue but the liberal left ALWAYS cry biggotry if someone disagrees with their positions on certain issues. Maybe they just have a religious disagreement with gay marriage that doesn’t mean they are biggots. President elect Obama is also against gay marriage if I reacll correctly.
It seems like many states are always voting on referendums on issues and we here in Indiana never get too. I wonder if there is a procedure where we the people could vote on issues in a referendum like time zone,gay marriage,illegal immigration,the selling of the toll road etc…
Couldn’t agree with you more on this issue, Doug. The US needs more advocates like you for ‘marriage for all’ initiatives across the country and repeal of DOMA and DADT would put this country back on the moral high ground where equality is concerned. Thx for sharing your opinions.
Sometimes “bigot” is the appropriate term. I’m pretty sure this is one of those times. My working definition of “bigot” is one who irrationally discriminates against a group based on an innate characteristic of that group.
Not all discrimination is bad. For example, discriminating between poisonous and non-poisonous food is perfectly rational. But I haven’t seen a rational case for discriminating against gays made yet. Occasionally you’ll get the “marriage is for procreation” gambit, but casual examination reveals this as mere pretext. There is not the slightest discussion or effort to ban marriage by post-menopausal or sterile women, for example. Mostly, justifications take the form of folks cherry-picking verses from the Old Testament, usually never bothering to explain why they aren’t pushing for a ban on shell-fish while they’re at it.
More and more, I’m convinced that sexual orientation isn’t a choice any more than whether one is left-handed or right. A referendum on whether to ban marriage on the basis of sexual orientation isn’t any more permissible or desirable than a referendum on whether to ban marriage among the left handed.
As always Mr.Masson I respect your opinions even though we disagrre many times. Those who believe sexual orientation is a choice in my opinion are wrong. I’m a fairly traditional person but have never believed that. I’m a person that does however strongly believe that when a referendum is on the ballot,money is spent on the campaign such as prop 8 and in fact more money was spent to defeat it that when the election is over and folks have voted that’s it.
This is a democracy and this is the second time gay marriage has been in effect voted down in CA. The pro-gay marriage folks can try again someday in the form of a referendum maybe they’ll finally be successful. As I said makes me no difference but a fair vote in CA. was held and they lost.
Mr.Masson if you have time knowing you worked in the legislature, I think anyway, could you tell me why states like CA.,Arizona and many more are always voting on ballot referendums for enacting legislation and we in Indiana never get this opportunity or at least I don’t think we do,don’t remember any. Are ballot referendums not allowed in Indiana? Thanks.
Correct. We don’t have a ballot initiative procedure like those states do. In order for the Indiana Constitution to get amended, the proposed amendment needs to be passed by two consecutive, General Assemblies then ratified by the voters. As I understand it, in California, they can bypass the legislature by getting enough signatures on an initiative, then it goes to a direct vote by the people.
Doug, at least formerly the proponents of SJR7 went to great lengths to say that ony “activist judges” would be restrained, and that the state legislature could, if it wanted to, enact even full civil unions. Not they’ve dropped even that pretense, barring the legislature from enacting civil unions and who knows what else. In the coming days a lot of folks, including family law practitioners, are going to begin to wonder what a “legal status substantially equal to marriage for unmarried couples” means. Time and time again the sponsors of SJR7 told us that same-sex couples could have the same rights and benefits if they just went to an attorney and had agreements, wills, etc., drawn up. Now what? If they do, will those agreements be judicially “recognized” or enforced? This doesn’t just make gays and lesbians second class citizens; it creates a superclass of folks, namely married heterosexual couples.
The ironoy shouldn’t be lost on anyone that their provision becomes part of Article I of the Indiana Constitution, called “Bill of Rights”. And it has the effect of saying that the “Privileges and Immunities” (the Hoosier version of “Equal Protection”, doesn’t fully apply to anbody who isn’t married. Hopefully lawyers like yourself who deeply care about such things (however they may view the religious and cultural issues) will be in the forefront of making sure this constitutional scam continues to go nowhere.
The writers of the Indiana Constitution, reflecting a mindset that is still prevalent among natives, disliked rapid change. Therefore they placed a slow process in the amendment clause so that the PEOPLE would have the intervening chance to turn out the rascals before they voted on the whole amendment.
I appreciate that wisdom — as this amendment is unnecessary and as Doug says, will be pointed out to be as aggregious as the laws against interracial marriage some day.
Personally, so long as people can be fired in Indiana for being gay –outside certain cities’ protections– then the marriage issue is moot for most gays and lesbians.
You can’t confuse racial and gender issues. Two different things. That analogy to blacks is unexceptable.
I did confuse them – in the sense that I joined the issues together (but not in the sense that I mistook one for the other.) Whether blacks accept the analogy or not (and I’m sure some would and some wouldn’t), it’s valid until someone points out a fundamental flaw.
The point being that sexual orientation is just as native to a person as their skin color; and irrationally discriminating against a person for a native characteristic is improper.
The above posts,taken together, seem to indicate that if the State and Federal constititions are interpreted as written, gay marriage will gradually be recognized as constitutional.Marriage is a state’s domain,so one state can speak for all because of the reciprocity law.But I dont think the SC has ruled on that issue yet.
I don’t understand Obama’s postion that he favors civil unions for gays but not gay marriage.Is Obama pandering to be ‘bi-partisan’?
As stated above, what does ‘civil union’ mean?
For a man and a women marrying it means exactly the same legally as a church marriage,and it’s automatic.The couple would have to see a lawyer to modify the legality of the marriage. There seems to be a deliberate effort with the gay marriage issue to avoid and confuse and emotionalize,depending on one’s agenda. Even my hero Obama seems to be posturing.
There is plenty of room to duck & weave when it comes to civil unions versus marriage. As far as the churches go, whatever they decide about “marriage” is their own business. I guess I’ve gotten to the point where I figure the State shouldn’t distinguish between gay and straight couples unless it can come up with a rational, non-pretextual, reason for doing so.
Civil unions are one thing. The term “same-sex marriage” displays bigotry toward Webster’s.
The language of the proposed amendment essentially outlaws civil unions. This isn’t about “protecting marriage” or anything else; it’s about denying a group of people the same rights as another, case closed.
Now, someone go ahead and tell me how discriminating against black people is bad but discriminating aginst gfay people is okay. Go ahead. Actually explain it. I’m not busy.
Well, they will, but it will bob and weave and have to rely on religious language, because in the end — on a civil rights level– there is NO reason for denial.
Do I think that means Indiana will have marriage for all couples soon? NO. Do I think this amendment has a snowball’s chance in hell this time around? NO.
Any legislator who thinks this issue is anything other than a means to create division and raise money — that Hoosiers are deathly afraid of their next door neighbor gays/ lesbians getting some kinda rights –needs to have their heads handed to them in the next primary.
JOBS. ECONOMY. EDUCATION. HEALTH CARE. Did I say JOOOOBBBBSSSS???
LOL Eric! Great point.
I’m in the camp of saying that there is no basis for denying civil unions to any two humans. That is a secular issue.
I’m against gay marriage, but I’ll take that up with my church. We can make our on decisions on that.
PTN, in the last election, only 7% of California voters were black, and of those only 58% voted yes on Prop 8. It defies logic to blame black voters for Prop 8’s passage. I really wish this meme would die.
A breakdown of the numbers can be found here
Shelly,
It is easy to make the mistake in logic. When you look at the link you sent, 49% of white voters said yes. So, it is a easy quip to say, “If it wasn’t for all of the non-white people, it wouldn’t have passed”. While that statement may be true, it really isn’t really relevant.
It was a close vote regardless, and the reasons for it being close have little to do with race.
Exactly. Little to do with race and a lot to do with religiosity and political bent.
Don’t forget money and scare tactic ads.
Doug, Where your argument lacks standing is in comparing ones race, ethnicity, and heritage to ones preferences in how to pleasure themselves. Everyone has a choice on where they want to play “hide the weinie” so to speak, but it’s a moral and behavioral choice, not one of birthright or ethnicity. To compare the two trivializes African-Americans struggles for civil rights, which is why they get so pissed at gay activists.
There is no comparison to be had between legally barring someone from drinking fountains, schools, voting booths and the like based upon their race and the notion that the United States Government needs to create special legislation or dispensation to allow Bruce & Lance to exchange cock rings.
I personally (like many people I’m sure) have gay family members whom I love. I don’t necessarily approve of their lifestyle choices, and again, they are choices, and if that makes them happy so be it but I certainly don’t have to condone it, and it certainly is not incumbent upon the state to sanction it.
I find it fascinating that 2% or so of the entire population has been able to even come close to making this a “civil rights” issue when it is quite simply, a matter of behavioral choice. People pleasure themselves with cows & inflatable dolls, do they need to be taken into consideration as well?
Tim, first of all, this legislation doesn’t implicate sodomy one way or another. Second of all, it’s not a “lifestyle choice.” When did you decide to be heterosexual? Was it a tough choice? The more exposure I have to people I know to be gay, the more clear it becomes that sexual orientation is innate, not a “lifestyle choice.”
This is not as trivial as how one chooses to manipulate ones nerve endings. Love and sexuality are fundamental pieces of what it means to be human. Arbitrarily treating gays as second class citizens is just wrong. I’m still not hearing a rational explanation for the distinction.
I know of two old ladies that were sisters and used to live together. Both were “old maids”, never married. I have no reason to think that they were lesbian, and many to think that they were not.
My point is that it should be socially acceptable for those two women to be given the protections of a civil union, and for people to not think that there is anything “gay” about it.
When the first one of them died, it was before things like HIPAA. Most of the local doctors were of the “good ol boy” system that, while normally is a negative, worked out well in this case since they knew the situation and allowed the other sister to speak for the dying one. Today, without protection of a civil union, she couldn’t do that.
Same can be said of the division of assets when she died, etc…
Finding a TRUE partner doesn’t have to be something sexual at all. Sometimes, there are just people that decide to band together with another person to help make it through life, and sex has nothing to do with it.
For fellow Christians, I would suggest the story of Ruth.
If I may be so bold… perhaps Tim meant to say: We have every right to maintain our un-evolved status quo because we are the most audacious over-privileged tax sucking moronic weenies deserving of nothing less.
Civil rights are usually protected by constitutions because they are considered fundamental to who we are. That type of thing shouldn’t be subject to majority-rules votes or referendums. Whether or not someone has the right to have spousal rights and other related rights with someone he or she loves shouldn’t be subject to the whims of slim majorities.
In response to Tim’s post, it seems that all of the “special legislation” is coming from those wishing to prohibit gay marriage, rather than those who support it. Do you really want some kind of moratorium on “special legislation”? Bring that shit on. Let the courts decide…
Tim, I wonder if your gay relatives even care whether you “condone” their choices, or not.
We’re talking about behavior that has a significant religious taboo attached, nothing else.
Explain to me why the government should be required to reinforce your own sexual mores, or even the sexual mores of some majority of Americans? That would seem unconstitutional. It’s personal relationships we’re talking about here.
Maybe you’d feel better if being GLBT were considered a religious choice instead?
Tim,
Being gay is not a lifestyle anymore than being straight is. It’s just that you, as a straight man, are in the majority and have historically gotten to call the shots. I’m pretty sure that majority rule is not an appropriate way to decide matters of civil rights.
Tim if you can locate a “consenting” cow or inflatable doll please notify the rest of us. Some may wish to verify that.
Then we may discuss strawmen.
I think BrianW is suggesting we get serious about bovine and plastic rape in this state…
Doug, initial post…well done. As for “…not hearing a rational explanation for the distinction.” I do not believe you ever will hear one.
I agree with Miles.
And I feel sorry for Tim’s gay / lesbian relatives. Obviously in his eyes they are less valuable to society and him personally than people who behave as he sees fit.
In a perfect society — for which I’d like to think we strive– no one person’s religious values could trump another’s, so long as consenting adults and no violence are involved.
You will notice that a) only the rightwing seem to propose such laws and b) the one time a case was taken through the courts in Indiana, the DOMA was upheld. It seems like the strawman of “activist judges” is moot in Indiana. Get real folks, these judges are just as prejudiced as the Legislature. Marriages between same-sex partners will not happen in Indiana in my lifetime — and more’s the pity.
BUT gay and lesbian lifetime partners will be denied the chance to be with their dying partner in the hospital.
They will be taxed at the Non-related rate of up to 50% upon death – thereby potentially losing their jointly owned home or business instead of being granted spouse status.
Their children will be denied family status on the partner’s health insurance.
They will suffer the slings and arrows of having to hide in the shadows in Indiana for fear of losing their jobs or housing or educational opportunities.
Delphi ain’t Indy — and not everyone can afford a fancy lawyer like Doug to draw up the needed legal papers to create a “pseudo-marriage” to protect assets and other rights. In fact, this new amendment might even make it hard for the courts to enforce such documents as well.
That is the reality for most gays and lesbians in Indiana. This 4-10% of the population pays the same taxes, works just as hard to build community and contribute in a thousand ways to Indiana. Too bad we can’t be considered and treated as first-class citizens.
And Tim, I’ll pray that you’ll some day realize just how truly spiteful and lame your attitude is. To have such distrust and lack of understanding for people you claim to love is truly quite stunning.
Doug’s a “fancy lawyer”? That could be taken several ways, I’m thinking. ROFL.
Easy, tiger.
Enshrining Bigotry into the Constitution
( and Morality)
After reading the series of entries for the above headline it struck me how close bigotry and morality are,and in many cases the difference is a political point of view,or cultural upbringing. I would amend the title to add ‘and Morality’
The whole above sequence points out how important our Constitution is to settle such emotional issues by using legal process, and seems to be the only workable option,and consistent with our American culture.
Bush Administration use of plebescite to circumvent the Constitution in matters of individual rights is a bad legacy for him,imo.
Why are you all responding to dim tank anyway? He’s just out to piss people off – you’re supposed to IGNORE people doing that.
Personally, I don’t think we ought to give homobigots the time of day anyhow.
Hoosier 1st. “And Tim, I’ll pray that you’ll some day realize just how truly spiteful and lame your attitude is. To have such distrust and lack of understanding for people you claim to love is truly quite stunning.”
This whole subject is a no win for either side. There is nothing spiteful about my attitude, I have no distrust or lack of understanding. I understand completely, I just don’t agree.
We don’t have to agree, and just because I don’t agree certainly doesn’t make me intolerant or homophobic. I personally don’t care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, I just don’t think we need to “celebrate” it, advertise it, sanction it, trumpet it, teach it, and legitimize it.
Remember, Even “The One” has repeatedly stated in public he is opposed to gay marriage but has no problem with “partners” or civil unions, the very same thing I believe, so are me and Baracky BOTH homophobes????
The absolute most common sense thing to be done is to leave the government “approved” marriage completely out of it. Let “life partners” contractually bind themselves to each others assets & wills etc….I’m not, and have not said I am at all in favor of the proposed legislation, my initial response was to Doug simply pointing out why African-Americans have a hard time accepting gay peoples argument comparing their struggle with them. Then all of the sudden, just like an on time train, I’m a racist, or a homophobe, or lame, or spiteful etc.
This is precisely why it is so hard to find common ground, you (as a group of commenters) can’t even be tolerant my thoughts or comments without becoming emotional and resorting to just dismissing my comments summarily.
That’s not debate, hell it’s not even a discussion, and that’s too bad because that should be what blog comments are for, to debate not dismiss.
Dim, when you act like an adult, you’ll be treated like one.
Damian, just stop. If you’re not going to even discuss or debate, just refrain, please. Stop with the drive-by’s already.
Until we can legally define ‘civil union’ in terms that are applied equally to gays and straights,then we can’t be telling gays they should go get a lawyer to make their unions legal while a man and a women can have a civil union and it’s exactly like a marriage.Separate but equal is fundamental discrimination. I feel I’m being low key and rational, and very constitutional.Ive traveled enough to realize that our Constitution is a magnificent concept and was put to paper by inspired men in positive-thinking times..
I am not being specifically even ‘pro-gay’.
But how how can we advocate policy using undefined terms,such as ‘civil unions’? .We need some ‘straight’ talk,that’s for sure.
Dim, I suggest you not try to tell me what to do. I don’t take orders from men twice my age who harass me on a regular basis.
Yes only 7% of CA voters were African American and only 14% were Hispanic but these grps voted 58% and 59% for prop 8 which inturn was one of the main reasons it passed in a close vote. White and Asian voters although by a slim margin voted against the measure both less than 50% therefore when two groups vote a combined 17% higher for prop 8 and the other two grps voted no by a slim majority yes Hispanics and African americans is one main reason the measure passed.
Race may not be relavent in the way folks voted but thats the breakdown. Doesn’t make me a difference on way or another.
Soon senate bill 580 will be up for debate a tough anti-illegal immigration bill,the type of legislation 70% of Hoosiers favor including myself judging by the rhetoric from some of the posts on this thread I see there will be no hope for a civilized debate. If you support the legislation you’ll be labled a racist or biggot when in fact with a country in a deep recession, 14 yr high in unemployment,strained local,state,federal budgets and 23 current guest worker programs we need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and employers who abusive them. I have followed many of last yrs I.C.E. raids in many places like SWIFT and a electronics manufactuer in Miss. american citizens of all races lined up for the jobs mothers with children at home were released.
For the record I am for the legalization if the gvmnt will once and for all stop the flow of illegal immigrants like was promised in 1986 but gutted out of the amnesty legislation and never carried out.