It’s officially spring now, as we pass the vernal equinox. Lafayette had a nice afternoon and evening, and after an absolutely brutal work day, the kids and wife being down in Indy today, I was able to run four or five miles and listen to some tunes on my iPod to unwind. Now I’m sitting on my back deck with a beer and a laptop. So, maybe it’s the endorphins, maybe it’s the nice day, or maybe it’s the alcohol that has me in an especially live and let live kind of mood.
But, now more than ever, I’m befuddled by the proponents of SJR 7 which would not only prevent same sex couples from getting married, but would also prevent a court from deciding that Indiana law requires an incident of marriage to be conferred upon an unmarried couple even if, and let’s be clear about this, the General Assembly passes a law requiring an incident of marriage to be conferred upon an unmarried couple.
What, exactly, is the evil that SJR 7 proponents are attempting to forestall with this kind of regulation? If it were only the marriage thing, I could almost understand it. The Church worked really hard to get a monopoly on marriage in the Middle Ages, and it’s a shame to see that monopoly eroded after less than a millenium.
But, this provision goes further. It stakes a claim on the entire bundle of rights encompassed by a marriage, and attempts to say that nothing in that bundle can be shared with unmarried couples. What’s wrong, in principle, with the legislature being able to pass a law –and equally important, the court being able to enforce a law that is passed– that confers estate planning or tax benefits, for example, upon unmarried couples; even if those benefits are currently reserved for married couples?
And, in my mind, what it comes down to, again and again, is that a particular stripe of conservative Christian really, really dislikes homosexuality, spending more energy worrying about and acting against that one form of perceived immorality more than practically all of the others combined. “The Bible tells me homosexuality is wrong” doesn’t really get us closer to an explanation of why this is. The Bible also tells me I’m not supposed to hug my wife while she’s menstruating (Leviticus 15:19-24), that I can own slaves as long as they’re from neighboring nations (Leviticus 25:44), that eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10 — abomination is also the term used for homosexuality), and that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death (Exodus 35:2). By and large, those Biblical immoralities have been dismissed by just about everybody. So, the special passion about the immorality of homosexuality needs back up. What is the principled moral argument against homosexuality that requires this stripe of conservative Christian to spend amazing amounts of time and energy seeking to amend our state Constitution to make sure that gays don’t end up with any of the rights enjoyed by married people?
Lot’s of blogging on the House hearing on SJR 7, but I’ll just refer you to Advance Indiana, and bilerico.
Could just simply be that this is more political than religious. With that Amendment on the ballot in Indiana it will cause an election day turnout that would soundly impair Democrats chances of winning. In short, SJR-7 is a very very large tool in the Republican tool box come elction day.
I have felt this way about SJR-7 for quite some time.
If Hillary is on the ballot along with with this Amendment I think Democratic losses statewide would be catastrophic.
Yes, Republican electioneering is driving this Amendment and not these right wing fringe Christian groups. This whole thing is a chapter out of Karl Rove’s playbook and it works.
If you guys want to blame everything on the Republicans, go ahead. But with polls consistently showing 80+% of the public against recognizing or bestowing rights to same-sex couples, it clearly goes beyond political or religious preferences.
It’s Karl Rove’s idea? Get real.
Mixing politics and religion is a dirty business. But I want to throw this biblical quote out there, because I find that many forget these oh-so-important words:
“A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.”
John 13:34-35
Or to put it in gansta lingo: don’t be a hater.
Only one question.I have been enticed by alternative beliefs on religion/culture etc…. my family is a long line of Freemasons but yet due to my juvenile mishaps i haven’t actually shared that particular achievement but i dream, i dream of my family long ago in a time that we have forgotten of hard work and labor of sacrifice and death i read a search for answers i was born 6/14/1979 and my last name is diem archaic Latin for day or deity maybe I’m just dumb but is there any link to me and my dreams of former greatness in the world?