Comments on Advance Indiana™: Same-Sex Marriage Debate

I'm glad we found something we can agree upon, Mar...

2006-11-14T14:31:00.000-05:00

I'm glad we found something we can agree upon, Marla.

Without actual data, it's just guessing but the be...

2006-11-14T14:16:00.000-05:00

Without actual data, it's just guessing but the best guess is that, no matter what version of this is put before the Hoosier electorate, they'll pass it. I'm of the opinion that, if hets want to hurt us enough that they'll vote to hurt themselves in the bargain, who am I to stop them -- so I favor not messing with the amendment -- merely using the opportunities the presence of it presents us to continue the discussion because discussion favors us in the long run.

It's not the amendment that's the issue, after all. It's both the state and federal Denial of Marriage Acts (DOMAs). It's that the opponents of civil marriage equality know that, if bigotry were not at play in constitutional interpretation, the right of same-sex couples to civil marriage would be secure and that they need a constitutional amendment to obstruct that should the courts wake up to that fact.

But that will be only a slowing tactic in the path of justice in the end for, by the time the generation of today's youth become the power generation of tomorrow, there will be the will to both repeal the DOMAs and whatever amendments have been put in place to secure them -- if we do not let the discussion die and continue to press for justice.

We have made more progress faster than any civil rights movement in history. If we keep things going at this pace, I may even be lucky enough to experience the day when the people and their policymakers actually honor the Pilgrims'* intent regarding the separate existence of religious and civil marriage and stop making like there's a state religion that we all must kowtow to in order to obtain access to the civil institutions of our society.

As for Wynn Moses' claim that "we all agree with the one-man, one-woman concept for marriage", I caution that such smug het supremacy does not become anyone with an eye to his legacy.

*The Pilgrims left England in part because they did not appreciate having to be married by the Church of England for their marriages to be considered legal. In their interim stay in the Netherlands before making the Atlantic crossing, they delighted in the Dutch separation of church and state -- including in marriages/weddings -- and brought that with them to the New World. In fact, in the early days of the colony, only civil marriages were performed as they could not afford to bring clergy over until they were well-established.

I don't know, Jeff. Did you see some of those vote...

2006-11-13T08:43:00.000-05:00

I don't know, Jeff. Did you see some of those vote totals for the ballot initiatives this year. Only South Dakota was close among the 7 states adopting. If a liberal state like Wisconsin can't muster anymore than 42% to vote against it, we can't expect a much better result here. The votes in Arizona and South Dakota aren't a good comparison--since there is a strong libertarian sentiment in both of those states.

It's kind of a double edged sword. On the one han...

2006-11-13T08:37:00.000-05:00

It's kind of a double edged sword. On the one hand, as you would prefer, it may be advantageous to have the thing go through like it is on the hopes it is so broad that the voters reject it or it doesn't survive a legal challenge.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the longer it can be dragged out the more likely its defeat no matter what form it takes, as the movement on this issue has been in our favor, and polls indicate that this trend will continue as younger generations reach voting age.

While your position has merit, Gary, it does present us with a nasty worst case scenario: the Draconian version of the amendment goes to the voters in 2008, passes, and survives all subsequent legal challenges. Ouch.