SJR 13, the latest run at Constitutionalizing marriage discrimination, passed the Indiana Senate on a vote of 38 – 10. I’m unable to find a link to the roll call vote though to see who voted for and against. I discussed my views of this amendment a couple weeks ago.
It’s a solution in search of a problem; it is – at root – mean spirited; and it’s on the wrong side of history. One day, we will view those who fight the acceptance of gays as equal citizens in the same light as we now view Strom Thurmond and Bull Connor.
I think it’s silly to spend time making definitions into laws and the Constitution. Then again, I think it’s silly to dramatically re-work definitions. It’s mean-spirited to trash the traditional definition; and it’s on the wrong side of Webster’s.
Go, Civil Unions!
Thank goodness this is DOA in the House. Total wasted of time. May history look with ruthless disfavor on these clowns.
I’m surprised the captains of industry weren’t out in force again this time to keep their subjects out of the discrimination game.
When Eric Schansberg cheers “GO Civil Unions”, he indirectly points out something that most of the media still don’t really get about SJR-13. Under it, unlike its predecessor SJR-7, Civil Unions would be GONE.
Why? Because when Senator Brandt Hershman touted the older proposal, he and others claimed it affected only the judiciary, keeping those “unelected activist judges” from changing the definition of marriage. His colleagues and others insisted that the General Assembly not ouly would, but also SHOULD, retain the ability to enact even full civil unions. They said their proposal was more moderate than what had been adopted elsewhere. Well documented.
Funny, though, when they brought in SJR-13 Eric Miller and others still focus on those “activist judges”, with not a whisper about the big switch (borrowd from those other states) that now also stops the legislature in its tracks.
Miller just meekly admits that SJR-13 would stop civil unions, without mentioning the 180 degree turn concerning legislative authority that SJR-13 represents. The real question is why the switch, and why is it being kept under a bushel basket? So much for the “will of the people” in letting the legislature reflect rapidly changing attitudes.
(By the way, Eric Schansberg, I was happy to see your Libertarian Party’s Executive Director Chris Spangle join me in a press conference Wednesday to condemn SJR-13 as an unwarranted intrusion of government into our lives.)
I pray that someday soon the U. S. Supreme Court will put an end to this perennial pandering by the Indiana Republican Party to the basest instincts of its supporters, by declaring that state constitutional measures limiting marriage to heteorosexuals violate the federal Constitution. But with the Court likely divided on the question, whither Justice Kennedy? Will he continue to have the courage of the convictions he demonstrated in striking down the anti-gay Colorado constitutional provision in Romer v. Evans as thinly-disguised animus towards its gay citizens, or in striking down the sodomy conviction in Lawrence v. Texas? I suspect the Prop 8 case now being litigated in California by the odd couple of David Boies and Ted Olson will provide the answer.
For the record, pandering is a bi-partisan thing. My favorite among the Dems is their fascination with the ill-targeted and very-mixed-bag minimum wage– all the while, leaving state income and massive federal payroll taxes on those at the poverty line.
I agree with Eric that the minimum wage is very unfair. Employers should be required to pay a living wage.
A “living wage” for heads-of-household &/or for a 16-year-old Johnny/Jenny flipping burgers?
If the latter, why (and why call it a “living wage”)?
If the former, why not go with policies that help without harming the people we say we want to help? And why would anyone want to deflect attention from policies that hammer the working poor with taxes?
If we raise the minimum wage, employers will determine that certain positions are not worth the extra cost. Thus, unemployment will go up. Does this sound like the type of policy we want to pursue with 10% unemployment?
Also, I am confused by this point…… “Why? Because when Senator Brandt Hershman touted the older proposal, he and others claimed it affected only the judiciary, keeping those “unelected activist judges” from changing the definition of marriage. ”
Aren’t all judges in the state of Indiana elected?
Eric,
I know that you strive to be a consistent conservative. Therefore, I must assume that this also means that you would oppose our feticide law, numerous child solicitation laws, contraceptive laws which do not consider RU-486 the same as a condom or birth control pill, because these are all laws about definitions. Hundreds of bills and laws concern definitions. Without definitions you have legal anarchy and government intrusion into anything any power at any given point desires because those in power will define matter as they choose.
As for constitutional definitions US Article 1 sec. 2 could be considered a definition, as could Section 3, Sec 5, parts of sec 8, Article 2 sec 1, sec 2 Article 3 sec 1 all of these define the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. Article 3 section 3 defines treason. . etc. etc. (Article 1 section 28 of the Indiana Const. also defines treason). . . Article IV sec. 2 defines the Indiana legislature, Sec,3 defines office terms, Sec. 12 define the legislative journal, sec 18 defines the reading of a bill, Article V section 7 defines qualifications of the governor, Article VII sec 2 defines the supreme court Article 12 Sec. 1 defines a militia, and that just comes from my flipping through the constitution.
You support civil unions. (Courts in some states are using civil unions to redefine marriage and force same-sex marriage into the law.) Since they are undefined and not legally recognized in Indiana, would it allow a 30 yr old man and a 14 yr old boy? Or should civil unions be defined somehow?
For a smart guy, whom I respect, your post seems to me to have been a libertarian knee jerk reaction the issue of marriage preservation.
Micah: Since you’ve entered the discussion, would you please break the silence and weigh in on the reversal from SJR-7 to SJR-13 concerning what the legislature can and can’t do concerning things like civil unions? I know you detest civil unions, but in the past in supporting SJR-7 you seemed to go along with the idea that lawmakers could still enact them. Explaining why the change of heart, rather than simply stonewalling the issue by silence, would seem to be a better course.
Micah, perhaps I was unclear: I did not mean that we don’t need to rely on definitions– or to clarify (as carefully as possible) what we mean within laws and the Constitution.
My point is that it’s silly for advocates to use “marriage” as the vehicle for what they want– and that this prompts the “silly” (but understandable as a response) attempt to use law to “define” marriage. I find it difficult to believe that any of us don’t know what marriage is.
It’s akin to horse farmers wanting horses redefined as cows so they can get the same benefits/costs. And then the legislature responds by defining cows.
Efforts to have a marriage-like arrangement could be codified in civil unions. (To your point, the use of civil unions to backdoor into marriage is also regrettable/ridiculous.) And since civil unions are not well-defined– and given that the State is going to be involved in such things– yes, they should be defined by law.
That said, for those who really want marriage preservation, there are much bigger fish to fry. In particular, we need to work a lot harder to limit divorce– a far larger issue.
Am I Libertarian? Yes. Am I Conservative? It depends on your definition… ;-)
Eric
I don’t think you made your point. We all know that a bill passes with a majority vote, what treason is, what our founders considered a militia, reading a bill, etc etc etc. on the things I cited above, and yet we still define them in constitutions. For centuries no one would have thought marriage was anything other than between a man and a woman and yet here we are in a land of confusion where people want marriage to be anything any group wants. I have worked on divorce issues longer than I have marriage protection language, by the way. Nearly 15 years ago. I helped pass the first change to no-fault divorce that had passed the Indiana Senate since 1976. The Dems killed it in the House, but that’s not my point here. I agree that divorce is a problem and have been consistent with both the decline and the deconstruction or loss of significance battles.
Don, to your point, we changed from SJR 7 to SJR 13 because of all the silly “boogie men” and “red herrings” you guys threw at the previous language with the bogus charges of domestic violence laws being undermined to SJR 13 which is language that has been in other state constitutions for years with no such boogie men. Our process is so slow we were stuck with unique language before. Now we have the language that some of the other 30 states with amendments have used without problems. That’s all.
Don,
I know I am going to be accused of dodging you on civil unions so I might as well answer that before I head to bed (horrible head cold).
As you probably know by now, KY and WI are two states with amendments identical to Indiana SJR 13 language the former approved by voters in 2004 the later in 2006 with strong majority support in each case. Wisconsin has a new domestic partnership law for counterfeit marriages that passed last year, five years after the amendment was adopted. Kentucky does not have such a law. I’m not an attorney, I believe you are. Maybe you can figure it out.
As I said before, we went with SJR 13 to avoid the red herring arguments and scare tactics used against SJR 7 in past years on domestic violence and other charges.
Best regards,
Micah
This marriage thing is still evolving I guess. The joint Church/state recognition of marriage which most of us kind of take for granted is only about 500 years old, give or take.
In the last 2,500 years, same sex unions have apparently been recognized off and on in different places.
I don’t really see the downside to gay marriage. It doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg. It certainly doesn’t harm my own marriage. About the only thing it does is reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality. Some folks may see the stigma as more of a feature than a bug, I guess.
Useless to try to control vernacular language.. The fear is that if two guys get married to each other in a civil ceremony they and others will call it ‘marriage’ . I also dont think gay marriage has evolved yet as a concept close to mainstream. One would have had to watch MTV back in the 8os .It still seems a very weird concept to many if not most people…Gay marriage may be common sense but common sense lags behind cultural-moral thinking. The older generation simply has to be no more,and then the world moves on.
Micah Clark: (first thank you Doug for indulging me for being able to respond to Micah; your fine blog shouldnt’t necessarily have to be a “run-on-forever” thread in a back-and-forth between two protagonists for an issue.)
With all due respect, you simply have not answered the question that I asked, and I continue to note complete silence from your colleagues. So let me restate, as simply as I can, the issue here:
The initial version, SJR-7 clearly would have restricted the Indiana courts. Both sides agreed on that. It also contained a second sentence that our side said could be interpreted to muzzle the General Assembly as to civil unions, etc. Your side said “not so” and produced documents and testimony to try and show that the General Assembly would remain unaffected (except as the the definition of marriage itself).
Now SJR-13 has come out and although your literature continues to focus on stopping the courts, it also now prevents the legislature from recognizing any legal status identical or substantilly similar to marriage. Nobody seems to disagree on that. To me, that is a big change.
My question has always bee a very simple one: What caused you to expand the prohibitiion to the General Assembly?
All you’ve essentially said in reply so far is that you changed the language to avoid “red herrings”. What’s so darned hard about telling us why the position change concerning the General Assembly?
Have I stated my question with sufficient particularity? If anyone else reading this who thinks I haven’t plese jump in and let me know.
Respectfully,
Don Sherfick
PS: You made other observations concerning no problems in other states, which I believe ought to be tackled also, but I’ll wait (and again beg Doug’s kind indulgence) to answer until this simple one has been disposed of.