The Indiana Senate has passed HJR 6 which prohibits recognition of a legal status similar to marriage for unmarried individuals and prohibits gay couples from getting married. No surprise. It passed 40 – 10. Many Senators were undoubtedly voting their consciences, but I suspect many have also done the political calculus and concluded that they might get penalized for voting against the amendment more than voting for it. I see that Sen. Richard Young, former Senate Democratic leader, voted in favor of the amendment. Along with House Minority leader Bauer, that’s a disappointment.
The bill really does no practical, immediate good (and I have argued that it does harm). The state has a so-called defense of marriage law on the books. The courts have upheld it. That won’t change as long as there is popular resistance to gay marriage. But, such resistance seems to be fading. Maybe the trend will continue, maybe it won’t. But if it does, this amendment will effectively tie the hands of future generations. And, maybe that’s the point. But, in this, I think it’s wrong to substitute impose our current sensibilities on them.
Matt Tully has a column that calls this an opportunity for the people to repudiate an unabashed, mean-spirited display of discrimination. Abdul says “let the people decide,” suggesting that this is a generational issue — his otherwise civil rights minded parents are just boggled by the idea of gays getting married; his teenage nieces and nephews don’t see why anyone would care to stop it. A referendum is apparently how this thing will have to play out. The Constitutional amendment process requires the same language to pass again in 2013 or 2014 and then go on the ballot sometime after that.
It’s a crazy system where there’s resistance to a referendum on a simple issue of general interest like Daylight Saving Time, but we get to vote on whether to constitutionally mandate inequality for our gay friends and neighbors. I’m something like 6th generation Hoosier, and I love my state. But, I’m not exactly brimming with confidence that my fellow citizens will make what I consider to be the humane decision on this one.
My position in opposition to same sex marriage need not be reiterated here. I even testified in favor of a different version a few years ago.
Your suspicions about the political calculation are almost certainly true. A vote against HJR 6 will be misrepresented in upcoming elections as a vote for same-sex marriage. HJR 6, however, has some features that make me less than certain that I will vote for it when it reaches the ballot. But (a) I’m not running for anything and (b) my vote will be secret unless I choose to disclose it.
What puzzles me is why the sponsors put in the dubious/odious parts. It’s almost like an initiation or something: “Do you want to join our club/fraternity/gang enough to go out, single out, and beat up a pervert?”
Ironically, the odious parts give cover to people who really are “voting for same-sex marriage” by leaving the courts the option of reversing themselves on the constitutionality of our defense of marriage law.
“What puzzles me is why the sponsors put in the dubious/odious parts.”
What, like the entire bill?
Disclaimer: I’m speculating wildly here and, for the sake of argument, assuming that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle choice rather than an innate characteristic of a non-trivial subset of humans.
With that assumption, I think second part of the amendment isn’t about preserving the characteristics of marriage. It’s about preserving the stigmatization of homosexuality. Which, I think, could be very important to someone who believes it to be a bad thing that openly gay people are increasingly accepted in our society. I think my case is fairly representative of that trend. In my younger days, I was anti-gay through a sort of cultural inertia. That cultural inertia sort of sluffed away as more people were candid about their homosexuality and as I realized some of those people were my friends.
And, it seems odd to me, but I think there are a fair number of people who actually care more about preserving the stigma but don’t have a personal hostility toward individual gay people — by which I mean, they know gay people and are perfectly happy letting those people be happy with same sex partners, so long as they keep quiet about it.
Not sure those paragraphs were all that coherent — mostly thinking out loud at the moment.
@Doug: You may be right about a desire to stigmatize. But it seems to me that things to be stigmatized falls in the middle ground between “rights” on the one hand and “crimes” on the other. “Vice” seems like a good term.
Shouldn’t a small government person should want stigmatization of vice left to the private sphere? I know that battle’s largely lost in our nanny state, but that’s part of the “middle ground” I tried to preserve 20 years ago in arguing against protected class status. What’s the big deal if one merchant in 100 doesn’t want green money from guys in lavender shirts (one of which shirts I owned until my girth got too great)?
Its stupidity and bigotry, plain and simple. Any while I’m pissed off about the vote, and the time and effort expended on this issue when we should be solving other ones, I’m not terribly worried.
You are right, its a generational thing, and in the end I’m convinced the right thing will be done. In 60 years, people are going to look back on this with the same sort of thinking as women’s voting rights: sure it was important, but now-a-days, its just common sense.
So let them try to ram through a constitutional ammendment in the next 5 years. Time is on the side of the just.
My only regret is that those opposed to such a thing, purely on the limit of freedoms, can’t seem to get a coherant message under their feet to save their lives. That seems to be a real issue across the entire Democratic Party right now – they might be doing the “right” things, but they sure can’t craft a message that appeals to the common person. Not only does this re-inforce their “elitism” it gives the right wing loud mouthed blow hards a lot of space to maneuver. THAT is what frustrates me the most about my party right now.
I don’t think it’s quite so plain or simple. Roger, for example, I know is neither stupid nor a bigot.
There are people who support this sort of legislation out of pure meanness and others who support it out of ignorance of one sort or another. But, there are still others who support it for reasons that are not so easily dismissed. And, I think you have to engage each form of support according its own merit (or lack thereof). Ignorance, you educate. Thoughtful support should be countered with thoughtful opposition. And meanness should just be opposed.
Doug, I’m addressing your ‘wild speculation’ above:
“They know gay people and are perfectly happy letting those people be happy with same sex partners, so long as they keep quiet about it.”
Why should gay people have to keep quiet about it, when straight people don’t? I get really annoyed at the stickers that minivans have in their rear mirrors (it’s always minivans) which show labelled stick figures of Mom, Dad, their five kids, and three pets. Aren’t they shoving their heterosexuality in my face?
If you substitute “divorce” for “homosexuality” in your first comment, you may be able to see why the whole subject makes those of us who are anti- the whole “gay marriage will destroy straight marriage” meme insane. There are more divorced couples in Indiana than gay couples — talk about a real lifestyle choice.
And, whatever you think about the sinfulness of the lifestyle choice, we are not a society based on sin and redemption, but on laws and punishments. It’s OK if I think gluttony is a sin, but I don’t want police rounding up everyone at 3:30 pm at the local Denny’s. The Legislature is not there to legislate sin.
It would be kind of cool if gay people stopped supporting the marriage industry. But there’s the snag: the newlyweds are their brothers & sisters, nephews & nieces, children of their friends & neighbors, and their own children. Anyway, Doug’s speculation-comment reminded me of the youthful discovery of Plato’s dialogs — Aristophanes’ tale of the three sexes, and Socrates’ address to his judges, where he said that if he had time to speak with them individually they would not condemn him. But there was no more time.
As a straight married man, I really resented having to get a marriage license from the local government when we got married. I’d like to see government out of the business of marriage altogether. (The history of licensing marriage has its roots in preventing mixed-race marriage, btw)
I understand the function of government in managing transfer of estates at the time of death. I can’t for the life of me understand why the same courts cannot manage the same kind of transfer when a gay person dies, leaves a will specifying a transfer to their partner, and then enforces that will.
I’ve often argued that in my almost 20 years of handling family law cases, I have yet to see one divorce happen because of what some gay or lesbian couple elsewhere has done. It’s illogical to argue that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage–take out the adjectives and you end up arguing that marriage is a threat to marriage.
I am very disappointed in the Democrats on this issue. For the first time in almost 45 years, I have to wonder whether I should move out of Indiana. Would I feel inclined to leave if Hoosiers approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting interracial marriage? Absolutely. Why should I feel any different about this issue? The practicalities of relocation (and rebuilding a law practice) are probably the only things that will keep me here. My wife and I like Indiana (other than the winters), but this is a national embarrassment on par with Kansas declaring that creationism is the official position of the state schools).
There is no question in my mind that these votes were inspired by politics, not conscience, in most instances. When the business community opposes the amendment, when editorials across the state oppose it, and yet the legislators go ahead with it, they are playing to a voting public. True leaders would have the guts to explain to the public why the amendment is not necessary–they’d actually lead rather than follow.
But, like in the Congress, our elected officials are messing around with things that won’t produce a single new job or help the economy. The lesson must be that when the problems that face us are complicated and difficult, vote on stuff to make your base happy instead.
The Legislature is not there to legislate sin.
There is a whole book of laws that disagree with you on that.
I’m not saying it is right for that to happen, either, but everything from drug & prostitution laws to cigarette taxes is to some degree legislating sin.
Argh, I guess the “quote” command doesn’t work here. Meant to use blockquote.
I was quoting Hugh’s last line:
Doug, feel free to edit my post & delete this one, or just leave both, depending on your demand for a clean comment section or more free time on your end. :)
Mr. Bennet:
I well remember your testimony for the proponents in favor of SJR-7 before the House Legislative and Public Policy Commitee in 2007. I testified against the same measure, which was then the version being offered. I had occasion to reply that session recently, and find your reservations against the newer measure very interesting. You now find the revised language “odious”, a pretty strong term, but an appropriate one. You may recall that your colleagues at that time were telling us all how “moderate” SJR-7 was in comparison to what could have been introduced from other states. You insisted that the term “construe” in SJR-7 was something that applied only to the courts and judges, and not to the legislature. Frankly I was skeptical of that position, but I believe you sincerely held it. Therefore I also think you firmly believed that as others in your group (also on video) said, the General Assembly would remain completely free to enact even civil union measues if saw fit. (Moreover, a spokesperson for the Indiana Family Institute affirmed that although some of her colleagues didn’t think SJR-7 went far enough, and that she didn’t like the concept of civil unions herself, the General Assembly still could, and in fact SHOULD be able to pass such measures short of redefining marriage itself.
Now, apparently to your own dismay, the “odius” measures from other states that we were supposedly being spared was brought back without much fanfare in HJR-6. And for quite some time the proponents continued to say it only applied to “unelected activist judges”, trying to avoid admitting that they’d gone 180 degrees with respect to legislative authority. Only recently at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing did Senator Lannane get your colleague Jim Bopp to admit that indeed there had been a change. Even then, though, it was simply stated in terms of now banning civil unions instead of something much broader: also banning LEGISLATIVE ability to do anything “substantially similar to” marriage. Odious…….aimed a what the proponents consider “perverts”. You betcha. Take a good look under that rock, sir, and you’ll probably find other things they didn’t tell you.
Jason: Agreed. Given the parameters of Doug’s original speculation (that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice) there are, indeed, books of laws on the topic.
A few assorted comments. Please feel free to attack all of them. I believe some more than I believe others.
(1) Agree with Jason, legislature does legislate sin.
(2) A less “bible-thumper” view is that this really isn’t about “sin”. This is about “deviance”.
(3) Doug’s posts notwithstanding, this whole thing is way overblown, as there is a current law that says gay marriage is not allowed. That law has been challenged, and been deemed constitutional. Therefore, this amendment is more a bipartisan part of our legislature (mostly Repub.) that is tilting at windmills.
(4) I just I read that something like 30 states have similar constitutional provisions. I am not sure that is correct (could it just be laws? the # seems low for states banning same sex by law, high for the # of states that have amenmdents on the subject). But if it is correct, then Indiana is really just in the majority (which doesn’t make the law right, but means you won’t find relief in most other locations.)
(5) As mutliple people have commented, this is a generational thing. I also wonder if part of this is fueled by older Indianans hope for granchildren. While not impossible, the odds of grandchildren with a homosexual child would seem less likely, no?
(6) Bill (and all): You are surely right that the Amendment will not significantly change the number of heterosexual people getting divorced. But could “outlawing” gay marriage change the number of people that wind up pursuing gay lifestyles? If we believe that being gay is “deviant” (but acceptable), and we believe that the state has an interest in repopulating the state, is that valid?
(7) Doug: Just wondering….how many times are you going to make the same post on this subject? I’m surprised this one took you the better part of a day to post. ;-) (j/k)
(8) Speaking of which, Doug, why is this “discrimination” again? To cite our comments from your last post on this subject, it is “discrimination in effect”, not “outright” discrimination, yes?
By way of clarification – my speculation was that some supporters were motivated by a desire to preserve the stigma. The part about homosexuality being a “lifestyle choice” was an assumption for the sake of argument.
My personal belief is that same sex attraction is innate in some people, just as opposite sex attraction is innate in most people. Like so many other things, I assume it’s a spectrum deal and not something binary.
I’d stop posting about the subject, but the General Assembly keeps voting to approve the damn thing.
It’s discrimination inasmuch as it confers rights on some couples that it does not extend to other couples. The real question, I think, is whether there is a rational basis for this discrimination. (The case can also be made that something more than a mere rational basis is necessary to justify the disparate treatment). My answer is that I don’t think I’ve heard one. Sometimes I’ve heard about reproduction, but that doesn’t seem like much more than an after-the-fact pretext. Non-reproductive, heterosexual couples are free to marry.
I’m not sure how the term “deviance” is intended in this discussion. There is a pejorative connotation to the term that I don’t think is helpful here. But, I suppose it could also be used in a purely statistical sense. I don’t think anyone would argue that the incidence of homosexuality in human populations is almost always below the mean. But, in that sense, we all have deviant characteristics.
Agreed on spectrum v. binary.
Deviance was only meant in the fact that it is different from standard, and that it is to the human population’s advantage to keep this number low (unless you believe we are overpopulated as a species, country and state).
To paraphrase (some might say bludgeon) Scalia’s comment from Lawrence v. Texas: Why is it ok to “discriminate” against polygamists (among others), but not homosexuals?
To want to have government involved in this kind of religious moralism is unpatriotic. Goes agisnst the grain of what this country and the Constitution supposedly stand for.
Who would have thought that Republicans would have let themselves get caught in such a moral dilemma?
@ Don Sherfick: I won’t get into how I came to be testifying in 2007, but I believed what I said about the Resolution then under consideration. I will leave to the consciences of the defenders of SJR 6 the defensibility of any claim that it’s unchanged from the 2007 version. Although I don’t remember the exact wording of the 2007 version, “unchanged” is far from the first thing that comes to mind when I see SJR 6 and compare it to my sketchy recollection of 2007’s version.
I get into these discussions almost exclusively because nobody is saying what I think needs to be said or responding very thoughtfully when I say it.
If we ever get past waving the banners of our respective teams – one side thundering “abomination!,” the other side screeching “stupidity and bigotry, plain and simple!,” it seems to me that two questions will be decisive:
(1) what interest does the State have in adults pairing off?
(2) is that interest connected to their erotic pleasuring of each other?
Neither question is rhetorical.
I think the state does have an interest, and that it is connected to (but not limited to) the very specific erotic pleasuring that used to be called “the marital act.”
But if the state has thoroughly lost sight of that (Indiana hasn’t – it was argued and accepted when our defense of marriage act was challenged), and has begun merely doling our goodies to folks who pair off, why shouldn’t two sisters, two brothers, or a sister and a brother be able to pair off, make the requisite promises of mutual economic and emotional support, and claim the same benefits without any implication that there’s something erotic going on? And why, in that case, should the benefits be as extensive as they are?
And if we get to that stage, then surely we should, pace Mike Kole, not call it “marriage,” and leave that title up to religious institutions.
The main fear I feel about this discussion is that we’ll never talk about these really serious questions, but instead one side with just steam-roll the other. That, sadly, appears to be what’s happening with SJR 6.
I don’t know if I fully understood Roger Bennet above,but it was a post that started some problem-solving thinking in a non-moral, and non-ideological way. Let’s be practical and constructive,and not worry about what others might do wrong when alone. Older, single people,like myself,would benefit from a domestic partnership for economic reasons:two guys ,two women,one of each…all the same.No one against would have any visions of people over 65 having illicit sex. So why not a brother and a sister or two cousins? It’s legal for a 90-yr-old geezer to marry an 18-yr-old cheerleader ,so legality and morality don’t always happen to coincide.
The discussion would be purely on economic grounds,and whether or not such partnerships would benefit the state as well as the individual..But these ‘economic partnerships’, to have full value for ‘the couples’ , would have to be recognized on the federal level.
So let’s start with the single, old people,whether divorced or widowed,or never married.We’ve all passed our promiscuity phase,and survived.Now we just want to live comfortably and watch the Cubs.
Lou’s point, reflecting what I think Roger Bennet is getting at, is that HJR-6 doesn’t just preclude legal recognition of same-sex relationships. It ends with the phrase “….for unmarried couples shall not be recognized.”
This proves how ineffectual the militant gay rights movement really is.
Don is correct about part of my intention. I’m skeptical that the benefit to the couple translates into a benefit for the state (including all levels of government) warranting any sort of tax break, subsidy, survivor benefits, etc. But we haven’t really had that discussion yet, and HJR 6, as I understand it, closes the door and moots such discussion.
For what it’s worth, the economic development benefit – “we need it to compete economically because all the cool jurisdictions have it” – is not one I readily accept. I’m tired of business calling so many shots for us.
Roger: If I understand your post correctly, you are suggesting that “the state” eliminate the recognition of marriage benefits to couples, including the benefits and penalties regarding taxation. Is that correct?