Ten days ago, the Indiana Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution No. 0007 (SJR7) in a 39-10 vote. This mimics the same vote in 2005, which passed 42-8 in the Senate and 76-23 in the House. The text of this bill, kept the same as the 2005 bill, was read by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and was reported favorably with a "Do Pass" recommendation. The text of the bill would create an additional section in Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution, to follow immediately Section 37 (the elimination of slavery in the state). The exact text that would be amended is as follows:
Section 38. (a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
If passed by the Indiana voters, Indiana would be the 28th state to constitutionally define marriage.
The procedure to amend the Constitution of Indiana is no small task, and there is only one method of amendment, as opposed to the Central government (commonly called the Federal government, a misnomer since the word federal actually encapsulates both state and national government), which has many ways to amend. As described in Article 16 of the Indiana code, the amendment can be put forth by either branch of the General Assembly. If a simple majority of both houses agree, the bill is entered into the journals, and must wait for the next Assembly (presumably 2 years later). If the bill passes both houses with a simple majority without any changes, the bill is sent to the electorate at the next general election. If more than 50% of the voters that turn out approve the amendment, the Constitution is so changed, and every judge in Indiana must respect that law.
I should point out that Indiana law already defines marriage as one man and one woman. That law was originally more of a dig at polygamists that homosexuals. But the wording is clear, and the law stands. So why do we need to amend our Constitution if it's already a law? This is a question asked by most of the opponents of the bill, but it's quite simple. The Republicans in control of the Indiana GA are actually correct when they say that an "activist judge" could overturn the law. That's because that law is unconstitutional, and, frankly, I'm surprised that the law hasn't been struck down yet.
The Indiana Bill of Rights in Article 1 clearly states in section 23 that "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." So by allowing heterosexual couples the privileges of marriage (including tax breaks, adoption permits, insurance, hospital visitation rights, and much more), the GA has granted a class of citizens privileges over another class. This is right in line with not allowing blacks to marry (wait, we did that for a while too) or allow races to mix. Obviously, the law on the books now is unconstitutional, and the GA Republicans know that. They may be bigots, but they're not (all) stupid. So to make that law constitutional, they would have to change the Constitution. Removing Section 23 is probably not going to happen, since it would allow the GA to prevent blacks from voting or women from driving. So they have to add a section to justify their law.
Let me talk a bit about the philosophy of this law. Now, the same type of thing has been discussed on the National level, and it is my opinion that any Central mandate on marriage would be unconstitutional, and downright wrong. The Tenth amendment gives the states rights to control every not discussed in the Constitution, including licenses, law enforcement, and, yes, marriage. If any one is going to make a law banning some sort of marriage, it HAS to be the states, and there is no way to justify it any other way. That's right in line with allowing the Central government to control education (which, they do, and since they took over in the 1940s, Americans have gotten stupider and have received poorer educations than they ever did under state control).
But even though states have the legal right to define marriage, should they? Where I come from, dictionaries define, not politicians. Does the state have the right to tell churches what they can use their money for? No. Does the state have the right to tell churches how to pray, or who to pray for? No. So why can the state tell churches who to marry (or not)? Most churches won't marry same-sex couples anyway, but those that will have determined that it is religiously okay to do so. And if a same-sex couple wants to get married in a civil ceremony at the courthouse, why shouldn't they be permitted to? Who does their union hurt?
Okay, yes, the state would receive fewer tax revenues because of marriage deductions. That would be a drop in the bucket for Indiana, whose GDP is about the same as the Netherlands. Any other harm done? "Uncomfortable" situations when neighbors meet, maybe? Come on, every television show has done an episode where gay neighbors move in, and while at first the family is uncomfortable with how to talk to them, eventually they come to the conclusion that same-sex couples are just as normal as they are, if not more so. That's not "liberal media" spreading a message, it's how it works.
If you grew up in a conservative white-collar suburb like I did, you can remember the day that the first black family moved into the neighborhood. At first, everyone was nervous. Change is unusual, and we responded in different ways. But eventually we realized that they were just like us, that those kids could play tag and kick-the-can just like we could. The same thing would happen in a neighborhood if a gay couple moved in. At first, sure, there would be a lot of staring and a "there goes the neighborhood" sort of atmosphere. But that wears off, and normalcy returns. The state allowing same-sex marriage would hurt no one. Yet it would make citizens of the state happy. God forbid that government ever allows that.
I really hate that this law is even put forth in a state I love so dearly. I really do love Indiana, and I want to live here for the rest of my days (less maybe 8 years in D.C.). But I find it offensive that our lawmakers would even suggest such a law, and I will find it equally reprehensible if the electorate of this state writes bigotry into our Constitution. All for what, to prevent "activist judges" from interpreting the law as they see fit (hello, that's what judges do)? It doesn't take an activist judge to see that the law is unfair and unconstitutional. I haven't even walked into a law school classroom yet and I can tell you that.
So what do I do? Do I abandon the state that I love so much? Do I become part of the "Brain Drain" and jump off a ship that is clearly heading for an iceberg? No. I can understand people of my generation wanting to get off this ship, but I'm staying. Positive change can come just as quick as negative change.
I think this law will pass, and I believe the electorate of Indiana will pass the amendment. That's how little faith I have in the electorate of Indiana. Don't get me wrong, I'm conservative, but this goes too far. A real Republican would never vote for this law, because it's a case of the state telling people what they can and cannot do, and real Republicans hate that. Where they got the notion that being Republican meant being a religiously conservative person, I will never know. This is just another case of the government doing more than we pay them for. I'm a Libertarian, and this amendment is just one of many reasons why.
In conclusion, there is no justification for allowing a ban on gay marriage in our state. Legally and philosophically, there just isn't a convincing argument to be made for the law, and proponents of the amendment prove this by using religion to support their cause. But it will pass, and will become law, unless the minds of Hoosier voters turn dramatically.
Even if this law passes, don't leave the state as part of the Brain Drain. The State would be wrong, and the voters too, but I swear to you that when I get control of the Governor's office, that amendment will be wiped off the books. I can't get elected -- freedom-minded people can't get elected -- if the people that believe in their ideals leave the state. Stay here. Be a Hoosier. Love Indiana, even when you occasionally disagree with it. Only then will the love be returned.
And vote NO on SJR7.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment