The Indy Star Editorial Board has what I regard as a sensible position on SJR 7 the proposed Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment entitled Don’t close door on civil unions. The Indianapolis Star reasons:
The proposal as it now stands goes too far — not only banning same-sex marriages but also closing off even the possibility of civil unions in the future.
Civil unions do not exist in Indiana, and may never be implemented here. But current legislators shouldn’t block the elected leaders who will one day follow them from even considering such an accommodation. . . . [W]hen determining what language to include in the state Constitution, moderation is in order. The House should amend SJR7 to keep open the possibility of civil unions.
Now, to start with, I don’t have any particular love for SJR 7 since I don’t have any particular objection to homosexuals being allowed to marry. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” Since the marriage of a homosexual couple neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I don’t regard it as any of my business. However, it’s also not a burning issue with me. There are a lot of problems in the world that are likely to affect me and my family directly. Gay marriage isn’t one of them. (Unless, of course, one of my children were to turn out to be gay. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”) But, I recognize that marriage as a civil institution is hopelessly intertwined with marriage as a religious institution. I also recognize that people are passionate, sincere, and not entirely rational about their religious beliefs such that it might be hard for them not to see civil marriage of homosexuals as an affront to their religious institution.
So, in my mind, civil unions are a viable option. Certainly not acceptable to certain segments of our society, but overall, a good compromise on a divisive issue. There are some legal benefits to marriage from which there are no rational reasons to exclude a gay couple. I won’t be leading the charge. But, in a couple of decades when Indiana sees that marriage hasn’t been destroyed as an institution in Vermont, as the doomsayers seem to predict, perhaps as those of us now under 35 get long in the tooth and continue to fail to see what the big deal is, we will want the freedom to offer a compromise solution. Or, if no solution is available, maybe we’ll see fit to repeal the amendment altogether.
Leave a Reply