Maureen Hayden, writing for CNHI, has a good column (h/t Indiana Law Blog) on HJR 6 – reflecting on what lawmakers will tell her in private versus what they feel they must say for public consumption.
Most people know and love someone who is gay. That number is only going to rise as more and more gay people feel comfortable enough to be open about who they are. I think there is a relatively small but hardcore group who very much fear and oppose recognition of gay people as normal people. That’s where the motor for such things as HJR 6 comes from. The text of that proposed Constitutional amendment again:
Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Now, keep in mind, gay marriage is already against the law in Indiana. This constitutional amendment seeks to make it double illegal or something. (Actually, it’s pretty clear the motive is to make it tougher for future generations to make their own decision about marriage equality as the consensus continues to shift.) The current law reads:
IC 31-11-1-1
Same sex marriages prohibited
Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.
(b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.
So, it’s not entirely accurate to say that the new Constitutional Amendment does nothing other than cement the eroding consensus against marriage equality. In addition, the amendment throws in a can of passive-voiced worms with that line that “a legal status ‘substantially similar’ to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be recognized (by whom?)”
In any event, Ms. Hayden notes that, many of the lawmakers to whom she has spoken are not the hardcore opponents of normalization. Rather, they are individuals who know and love friends and family who are gay but fear the political backlash if they come out of the closet and vote their conscience.
To whom I say, the progress that your loved ones have made, particularly in the last 20 years, is due almost entirely to the bravery of those who stuck their necks out first. Because they did, more were willing to follow. And, as that happened, the backlash diminished. Because, it turns out, most people are willing to live and let live. The lawmakers who are secretly accepting of gay people but feel obliged to pretend otherwise in public should come out of the closet themselves.
And, in honor of a conversation I recently had with Michael Wallack, I’ll put up this old chestnut from Frank Herbert, the litany against fear, that seems apropos:
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Thank you Doug…… talking about the private versus public sentiments of lawmakers on this issue is very important. Members of the Indiana General Assembly have (whether they wish to acknowledge or not) lesbian and gay individuals and couples as constituents, friends, relatives, children, business colleagues and co-workers. That is the human equation involved.
Seriously cool! I get a mention on Masson’s blog!
“I think there is a relatively small but hardcore group who very much fear and oppose recognition of gay people as normal people.”
Well, they’re not “normal.” Q.E.D.
You’re an eel, forever attempting to smear the normal as fearful.
“Now, keep in mind, gay marriage is already against the law in Indiana.”
There is no logical construct of “gay marriage,” any more than there can be kitten puppies.
“Now, keep in mind, gay marriage is already against the law in Indiana. This constitutional amendment seeks to make it double illegal or something.”
So don’t vote for it.
If it isn’t fear, what is it? What would cause people to organize for the purpose of denying a subset of society the right to live their lives the way they want to, particularly when that subset poses absolutely no threat to them, if not fear? The only other possibility I can come up with is hatred, in which case fear is less ugly.
I would have expected a ‘live and let live’ attitude from someone sporting the moniker ‘Freedom’. Alas.