Sen. Yoder has introduced SJR 13 which seeks to create a constitutional definition of marriage. This is a variation on the continued panic in some circles about the potential for equal treatment under the law for gay people. A similar marriage amendment failed to pass the last General Assembly and therefore never got on the ballot. Now the process has to start over. This iteration says:
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.
It struck me that a fair reading of this language could lead to the non-recognition of second or third marriages. Maybe they should add a parenthetical between “woman” and “shall” that says “(at a time).”
The second sentence is obviously aimed at civil unions, but the net it casts is awfully wide, catching unmarried heterosexual partners as well. “Substantially similar legal status” is an awfully murky phrase, particularly from those purportedly nervous about “activist judges.”
I’m just flat against this kind of legislation. I’ve described my progression before, but for those just tuning in: Growing up, I thought of myself as anti-gay, because I didn’t know any gay people. Or, more accurately, I didn’t know I knew any gay people. Turns out a non-trivial number of guys I knew growing up and in college were gay. (Sorry if I said or did anything to offend, gentlemen). Once I met a guy I new to be gay, being “anti-gay” quickly seemed silly. He was, in most respects, just like anyone else I knew, and it seemed awfully small of me to dislike him simply because of who he loved. But, from there, I probably only got as far as indifferent to gay issues. I wasn’t against them, but they weren’t important to me either.
Now, I’ve progressed to being affirmatively in favor of allowing gay marriage. There just isn’t any rational basis for opposing it. If your God tells you to work against gays, I guess that’s between you and him. But the State’s supposed interest in promoting procreation is just hogwash. If that were anything but a pretext, you’d see prohibitions on marriage by post-menopausal women and sterile men. Working from the presumption that sexual orientation is a birthright and not a “lifestyle choice,” denying gay people such a fundamental right for no good reason seems gratuitously mean.
We have “provisional ballots” nowadays – why not “provisional marriages”?
If procreation is the purpose of marriage,why not issue provisional civil-union documents good for only three (3) years. If the couple have an offspring, it gets converted automatically into a full-fledged marriage license. If no baby after 3 years, there can be a one-time 2 year extension granted by a court.
Otherwise, the couple cannot be considered married and are thus merely shacking-up and living in sin — having wild monkey sex!
Procreation-I’ve officiated at many weddings where the woman (I’m guessing) was past menopause. I’ve also had more than one wedding where the woman had to get a hysterectomy at a young age for various health reasons.
Yeah…I love the procreation argument…
I’ve always wondered why our civic leaders feel a need to promote procreation in a society that is already so overcrowded that jobs are difficult to come by.
Maybe we’re breeding soldiers for the conquest of foreign lands?
It disgusts me how this issue comes up year after year, after being defeated. Well, it disgusts me that it comes up at all. Let people live their lives without interference!
For that matter, it has always offended me as a straight man that I had to obtain a license to wed. It really is no business of government. I see no reason why courts cannot convey estates according to living wills, etc., among the many rights and obligations spouses convey to one another upon passing.
Civil unions should be the only thing a government is involved in. Their job should be to make sure it is only 2 people at a time, so that the legal benefits can’t be overblown.
Marriage should be a religious issue only. Each religion can decide for itself the requirements with that institution.
I don’t get why this idea is so hard for everyone to grasp. Yet it seams that the gay-rights side is screaming for the government to stamp “Marriage” on their unions, while the other side is saying that homosexuals shouldn’t even be allow into a civil union.
This seems like such an easy compromise, far more than something like abortion. Do you think a national ad campaign aimed at both sides that says “Don’t be a dick” would help?
Marriage as an institution predates involvement by the Church. Prior to about 1,000 years ago, it was more common than not in western Europe for people to be married without Church involvement than with. I was just reading where it was not until about the time of Pope Innocent III that the Church started making a big stink about getting involved with marriage. My understanding is that the papal decrees gave disgruntled heirs means by which to cause trouble when property was going to pass in a certain way through a marriage that hadn’t been performed by clergy. So, if you had property, you wanted to get church blessing to be safe.
“Marriage should be a religious issue only. Each religion can decide for itself the requirements with that institution.”
You can say that a couple got married in a civil ceremony,and everyone knows that it’s a marriage.
Civil ceremony and marriage should be exactly the same as far as automatic legal rights are concerned..I’m not pushing gay marriage,but it bothers me when people parse words so they don’t have to be accountable,and they know they are deliberately misleading.
My son intends to marry his mommy. I don’t see anything in this amendment to prevent it, as long as he waits until he’s a “man”. He’s only four right now, so maybe he’ll change his mind by then.
T – This bill isn’t about prohibiting the type of marriage you discuss. Your situation is already handled elsewhere in the code. See 31-11-1-2.
This “amendment” is virtually the same thing as 31-11-1-1. Which has been on the books for at least 13 years. While Amendments are more difficult to repeal than laws, I can’t see much use in the duplication (even if I agreed with the amendment, which I strongly don’t).
Doug, I agree with you that this amendment should not be passed. However, I don’t find your logic on instituting gay marriage. Marriage was brought to this country as a religious ceremony that happens to be recognized by the state, and whether marriage predates the church is irrelevant. If the religious ceremony of marriage predates our country’s founding, it seems odd that the “state” would first recognize this religious ceremony, then, hundreds of years later, tell the church that their definition of marriage is wrong.
I can certainly get on board with civil unions, but I just can’t buy this “redefinition” of the religious institution of “marriage” by the state, and see this as an undermining of that religious concept. If the argument is made that we need to be consistent and just take the state out of marriage altogether, I am ok with that. The only real change if this happenned (going forward) would be that people would file for a “civil union license” with the state, and still be able to conduct their religious marriages outside it.
PCR – unfortunately, it isn’t that simple. Hundreds, thousands, who knows how many statutes are in place that reference certain treatments or privileges to spouses or “married couples”.
Morally, I agree with Doug. Practically, I think it is the only way to ensure equal treatment under the law.
I should point out that sometimes marriage is a disadvantage.My nephew and wife-to-be are now on the way to having their second child and have found it more economical to remain unmarried as long as prenatal help and baby supplies (not sure what else) are provided by state. Probably Indiana policy is similar to Illinois.
Wouldnt it make more sense to provide these needs even if they were married?
Yes, and this amendment would tie not just the hands of the courts but also future legislatures… like when the next generation comes to power and says that they see nothing wrong with civil unions – the amendment blocks that too.
In fact, it’s even vague as to whether ANY rights similar to marriage could be granted – including hospital and health care decisions, adoption, inheritance and domestic partner benefits provided by state universities. I mean, who will decide what the language means — um, the same courts that the proponents call activist.
hence: A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Lou,
My point was to say that a “find and replace” should be done with all laws that change the word “marriage” to “civil union”. Clergy would be licensed to perform civil unions, and they would happen to call their civil unions marriage.
Point being, make the legal term “civil union” and get rid of the word “marriage” in a legal context.
Marc: I am aware of that. That’s not a big problem at all.
Senator Tim Lanane (D-Anderson) ruffled SJR-13 lead off attorney Jim Bopp at the hearing Wednesday when he finally got him to admit that it would bar BOTH the courts and the General Assembly from enacting civil unions and some lesser benefits. The media don’t seem to be picking up on the fact that sponsors have flipped 180 degrees on this one from predecessor SJR-7 to the supposed “simple rewrite”.
Once, armed with all kinds of legal opinions to support him, former chief sponsor Brandt Hershman inisisted that SJR-7 was only aimed at the courts. The conservative blogsite Veritas Rex chimed in and said that not only would the legislature still be able to pass civil unions, etc., but that it “should” be able to.
Deafining silence so far as to WHY the “under the radar” change and what it would mean for Indiana.
Allowing gays to get married doesn’t “tell the church” that their definition is wrong … they can still keep their views (like how plenty of religious people would probably never accept your marriage as valid). The only “force” against the church is not allowing those churches who don’t want gays to get married (plenty do want to marry them BTW and are not allowed to by the state) to force their will on everyone (even if outside out of the church). They don’t have to marry gays if they don’t want to, just like they don’t have to marry atheists or anyone else.
PS: With that argument, how is it legal for anyone to be anything but their definition of Christian?
PCR: I disagree, because many of those statutes are federal in nature. So calling it anything but marriage at a state level may not confer all the privileges heterosexual married couples get, unless DOMA addresses it. I am not versed on the subject, but seems an issue that needs addressed.
Jason wrote: Point being, make the legal term “civil union” and get rid of the word “marriage” in a legal context.”
I agree that would lessen confusion. But I just read through all the posts in order, which gives a perspective of peoples feelings and legislators intent.So much legislation, and that especially proposed on socicial conservative issues has hidden intent:i.e, to block future legislation legislatively is vile politics.
“When people figure out the truth,we dont want them to be able to act with new laws.”
As I once remember saying to a high school class:”Let’s define what words mean before we start arguing what we’re going to do,and who is right and who is wrong’.
In the issue at hand: ‘
Define ‘civil union’ with one defintion no matter who gets hitched and then let people call it ‘marriage’ if that’s how they see it.That someone be able to collect SS survivorship benefits(etc) with no rigamaroll is the real issue.
Why is the direct approach so often discarded first?
Vocab correction:
rigmarole: ME.raggeman,a document,roll used in a game..a succession of foolish,rambling,or incoherent statements;nonsense
Lou, we’re in agreement.