Future of Marriage Ban Murky at Best
Today was the second session of this year’s class of the Indiana Leadership Forum (ILF). I have had the great opportunity to be a part of this class and today’s session was spent at the Statehouse visiting a few of our statewide elected officials, plus State Representative Brian Bosma and State Senator James Merritt.
During a question and answer session with Republican Leader Bosma, many questions were asked regarding property tax reform. When asked if there were any other issues that this years session would be focusing on, he mentioned the all too familiar refrain of “property taxes, property taxes, property taxes”. But when pressed a bit further, he mentioned that if there were any other issues that could be addressed it would job creation and immigration. Noticeably absent from his list was the gay marriage ban. As I’ve mentioned on this site before, I’m of two minds on the ban. But, I decided to ask him anyway what the future of SJR-7 would be this session.
(Read what happened next below the fold)
Basically, the outlook isn’t good. He said that there are greater priorities and that the time that is contained in the short session allow for very little to take place outside of the property tax issue. That sentiment was only driven further when our class met with Senator Merritt after meeting Rep. Bosma. When asked what he thought were the Senate’s priorities he said, property taxes, his government consolidation for Marion County (IFD merger ect.), and immigration. When asked what he thought had a good chance of passing during this session he said property tax reform and maybe his consolidation plan. He mentioned the gay marriage ban in passing, but the distinct impression I got was that there were issues of greater importance this year. As an aside, both commented on Senator Mike Delph’s bill concerning immigration, but both espoused a Federal cure to this problem. They did not rule out that an altered version of the immigration could indeed be passed.
But does this mean the ban is dead for this year? My guess is yes, though because of pressure from outside groups, the ban may receive cursory hearings and maybe even a vote. I followed up my question with Rep. Bosma by asking him if the Republicans take back the House this year, is there a chance the marriage ban would be reintroduced? He didn’t want to promise anything citing the need for him and the rest of the Republicans to focus on the session ahead them. He didn’t rule it out though.
I know I will probably get flack from my conservative brethren, but I have to agree with Rep. Bosma on the handling of this issue. There simply are greater issues at stake this year than the marriage ban. Does this make Brian Bosma, Senator Merritt or me against the ban? Does it make them any less conservative or for gay marriage? Absolutely not! The simple matter of the fact is, this year, there are issues of greater importance than the marriage ban. One solution that was mentioned to me over the last couple of days, when discussing the ban, was that Congress could step in by limiting the power of judges to legislate from the bench instead of seeking out a ban. Accountability is the very reason we have three branches of government and that solution does not appear to be unconstitutional. I know I’m in the minority amongst conservatives on this issue, but this seems to circumvent the need for a Statewide or even a Federal ban.
Is the issue over and done with in the General Assembly? I’ll go on record now and predict it’s demise. But I wouldn’t rule out a return if Republicans take back the House in November. But I guess anything can happen.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:46 am
While the Constitutional Amendment should unnerve every thinking Patriot, you have to reflect on the reality of why its supporters think it is necessary. The call to equal protection of the laws and to religious freedom governs in the Constitution, and in order to continue to deny that protection to gay citizens, the Constitution’s call must be silenced.
The attempt to amend the Constitution is a travesty because the legislative bans themselves are travesties upon the calls to equal protection and religious freedom of the Constitution. Justices not only are empowered to void such laws, but if they adhere to their oaths of office, oaths which every American should take, to protect and defend the Constitution, they are called upon to apply the Constitution over those laws which are so clearly in violation.
It isn’t Justices that over-reach…. it is the Legislature, which ignored the Constitutional calls and indulged themselves in an act of bigotry against fellow citizens who were powerless to defend themselves.
The majority of Young Americans have come to know their siblings, classmates, and friends who are gay as no different from themselves except for their sexual orientation. The majority of young Americans favor civil recognition of same sex partnerships. The majority of young Americans have no problem with their friends, siblings, and classmates finding happiness in marriage. Even without the action of justices, the future of the legislative bans is clear, for the majority of young Americans no longer identify with the inherent bigotry of the bans, just as we no longer identify with the bigotry of the laws that banned inter-racial marriage.
This is the real reason for the Amendment push… not to stop activist judges… but to stop legislatures from one day reflecting the sentiment of the majority of Americans when young Americans reach age and power and decide the legislative bans are inhumane.
You were deceived and manipulated by the authors of this amendment. We in the gay community in desperation, and over our own Constitutional guarantees to equal protection and religious freedom, in the beginning proposed through powerful political forces alternative language to Senator Hirschman (sp?) that would have reserve the power to define marriage to the legislature, which language would have passed and would have stripped the courts of the ability to enforce our guarantees, preserving the legislature’s power to define marriage and exclude us. That would have preserved our hope that future generations would have the power to grant us relief.
But Hirschman and the forces that backed him refused such language, for they knew that their real effort was not to deny judges their “activism”, but to prevent future legislatures to reflect the will of the coming majority. In their refusal they laid bare to others their motivations, and they lost their claim to be representing the will of the people and the power of the legislature, which they were seeking to denude. It was then, unbeknown to them, that in their over-reach, they forfeited the prospects for success of their assault upon us.
The death of the Amendment, if it is dead, must be laid at the feet of the authors and their, who in their own inhumanity refused to compromise. A more enlightened community .. of corporations, churches, politicians, and editorial boards (not one major paper in Indiana has backed the Amendment…)… combined to see that this amendment… and the inhumanity that informed it… would find its grave. Human decency finally prevailed.. making Indiana and Arizona exceptional among states as the first Republican states to refuse to sanction bigotry in our Constitutions.
In the defeat of this Amendment every young Republican and every thinking Hoosier should find quiet satisfaction, for an ugly blot upon our future is removed.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:58 am
(Regarding equal protection, it is my belief that most Hoosiers have not idea of the true impact of the marriage bans on their fellow citizens.
The importance of religious marriage obviously should be left to each religion and the conscience of congregations as the Constitution guarantees.
The importance of civil marriage, however, is that it established highways and biways through a complex network of laws and regulations affecting two people who… now man and woman… who have committed themselves to building lives together. The institution of civil marriage provides the traffic lights regulating life for married couples.
Gay couples, on the other hand, have none of the traffic lights available to them, and our roads are full of chaos. For example the majority of Americans have no Will/Last testament in place. Married and living together? One spouse dies and the other gets the house without either legal challenge or a requirement to pay taxes. Same sex couple without a marriage certificate? Then depending on how the house is titled (in the name of the deceased, Tenants in Common, or Joint Tenants with rights of survivorship)the survivor either loses the house entirely, loses to the relatives of the deceased half of the house, or must pay a substantial tax to retain the house.
Justices who have ruled against the bans do so as matters of conscience, for it is difficult to review the complex web of laws and conclude that gay citizens , though tax paying, law abiding, and guaranteed, enjoy the privileges and immunities to which the Constitution entitles them. Many of these justices have been Republican appointees who have no love for the idea of same sex marriage… but who find as Patriots and sworn office holders a higher calling to answer to the promise America makes to its all citizens. It is through these justices, our system that empowers them, and the Bill of Rights which they protect, that the tyranny of the majority which the founder fathers feared is contained.
The bigotry that informs the majority today is passing, as past bigotries have passed as well. A new majority is rising, as always a younger generation, that sees things differently and will have the power as Americans to act upon their own vision. In this America finds its eternal greatness.
It is time to extend equal protection of the laws and religious freedom to everyone. It is the civic obligation of conservatives and liberals alike.)
January 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Chris, should we legislate who one can marry at all? For instance, we have bans in most places where first cousins cannot marry. Is that appropriate? We disallow polygamy in this country. Is that appropriate?
What limits in marriage do NOT constitute an abandonment of equal protection? Minors?
January 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Joel, good question regarding first cousins. You have forced me to research, for while we have been accused of wanting to promote the marriage of beasts and children, I don’t recall yet first cousins being raised.
I understand that marriage between first cousins is legal in Europe, Canada, Mexico, and many American states, and that it is biblical, not to mention other parts of the world.
The great problem with such inter-marriage is (I understand without further research) the problem of the genetics of the offspring and a greater tendency to carry inheritable disease. IF that tendency is true, then increased family intermarriage would seem to cause ill effects on the offspring, so I suppose limitation and discouragement could be warranted. Certainly marriage between cousins, it would seem should not be pro-actively encouraged over alternatives.
***In contrast, I argue that marriage of gay to gay is a societal good, accomplished between two people capable and entitled to decide for themselves, promoting stability, mutual responsibility, mutual commitment, and protection for children of the partners, while suppressing the spread of disease, just as it does for straight couples. It’s effects on the gay community specifically would be beneficial directly, and on society beneficial indirectly. The amendment bans that which it would be better for society and for gays citizens themselves instead to promote.***
The problem with marriage to minors is that we know minors have no capacity to make such important decisions… they can’t even enter into binding legal contracts, for instance… so they must be protected from error until they reach their majority. While we must acknowledge that minors marry all over the world, and have forever, I agree that for societal good and for the good of the minor, the contract of marriage, as with all other legal contracts, should be withheld until they are capable of understanding it when they reach majority. (Although, even then, few seem to understand it enough to embark upon it successfully!)
***In contrast, I argue that marriage of gay to gay is a societal good, accomplished between two people capable and entitled to decide for themselves, promoting stability, mutual responsibility, mutual commitment, and protection for children of the partners, while suppressing the spread of disease, just as it does for straight couples. It’s effects on the gay community specifically would be beneficial directly, and on society beneficial indirectly. The amendment bans that which it would be better for society and for gays citizens themselves instead to promote.***
Regarding Polygamy, which is biblical and also practiced all over the world, it’s not my thing, but perhaps you can answer the question for me. Why do we ban polygamy? In your answer, perhaps you can touch upon why polygamy is worse than serial marriage (marriage/divorce/marriage) in which children are left behind dealing with the issues of split and perhaps impoverished parents?
I’m not asking this to be cute. Whatever reasons you might offer I might agree with. But it’s your turn!
January 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I’m not asking my question to be cute either. What I am trying to figure out is how “libertarian” the gay marriage position is. Your answer here is not the libertarian argument at all (i.e. all should be free), but you are making a “conservative” argument that it would be good for society.
The single argument that I can see FOR gay marriage is that it might encourage more gays to depart the “gay lifestyle” (if there is such a thing) of many partners for one partner. This would be helpful for society in general. (In other words, your equal protection argument still doesn’t ring true to me).
In Judeo-Christian history, polygamy was actually fairly rare certainly by the first century was not practiced in the Jewish culture. Through that tradition, polygamy was frowned upon and ultimately banned. I personally do not think that polygamy is “worse” than serial marriage. Your observation of the damages of serial marriage are all correct. I think that “no fault” divorce has been detrimental to our society.
From a conservative point of view, I look to see what we can learn about polygamy from history and the world around us. Biblically, there were almost no cases of recorded polygamy that were not recorded with great problems that came about because of it. The one place that I have been where polygamy was practiced (Uganda, Africa) the practice has decimated their society due to the attitudes of men toward their wives as well as helping to spread AIDS throughout their population. That is why I am against polygamy.
But the libertarian might argue the same “equal protection” arguments for polygamy et al as some make for gay marriage. That causes some, who might otherwise agree with gay marriage, to oppose it (the old slippery slope argument).
January 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Joel, I’m not sure of that it was polygamy that caused the spread of disease in Africa so much as, possibly, promiscuity.
I remember my freshman year (er…. 1983, I confess… a year in which I also escorted Jerry Falwell to campus from the train station, myself representing the conservative debate society there) in college getting to know a female classmate from Africa. Malaika was her name. I don’t recall from what country she hailed, so it is dangerous to generalize based on what she said. Nevertheless, it was striking that she said where she came from (and I take her at her word) it was perfectly acceptable for a young woman (including teenagers) to slip out the family cottage in the darkness and into the cottage of any young man that might catch her fancy, enjoy a night together, and return. Malaika had a strong and enjoyable personality and seems to have relished her teen years. Polygamy was not so far as I recall in the equation; clearly it wasn’t polygamy that was necessary to create the conditions for the spread of sexual disease in that particular circumstance! (Today, I would say that Malaika was lucky to have survived; the spread of AIDS in Africa began shortly thereafter.)
I know nothing of the culture of Haiti, where AIDS by reputation spread first, but I wonder if a similar cultural predisposition toward a care-free sexual environment existed there as well.
My own bias against polygamy is out of the vague sense, which you seem to share, that it occurs only in environments in which women are treated unequally, (though in at least one small island nation, it is the men who serve as multiple husbands to a single wife.)
In any case, the evidence is well established today that gays exist, have a generally (though not universally) indelible sexual orientation, invite mainly misery for themselves and their spouses when they attempt to deny their own sexuality and marry contrary to their orientations, are capable of normal existences and happy family lives when allowed to live with their orientations, to the detriment of absolutely no one.
In my opinion, it is principally prejudice, sometimes born of an adamant religious perspective and sometimes born of ignorance, that informs the attempts to deny gays the ability to get on with our lives in as close to normalcy as our given (according to most authorities, even if the mechanism isn’t clear) orientations will allow.
To my knowledge, though genetics or belief may drive a certain component of promiscuous behavior that polygamy would seek to either to leverage or contain, there is no real class of people who more than the rest must have multiple spouses at once in order to achieve happiness, without which multiplicity it would be impossible to live a fulfilling life.
But the same is not true of gay citizens, who will generally fail to achieve their potential as happy human beings attempting partnership with other than people of the same sex to whom they are emotionally and physically drawn. (Many gays, including me, can report that though they attempted to date women through high school and college, finding ourselves intellectually attracted but not experiencing nor even fully understanding the emotions described in songs and poetry about love. Through the same period, crushes were on our male friends. Only upon finally connecting with another gay, did I understand what love, its poetry and song were.)
Because of the general indelibleness, like age, faith or disability, I most certainly do believe that gays constitute an identifiable class, a position with which the majority of Americans are coming to agree, and that the following Constitutional clause is operative:
Section 23: 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.
It is an injustice to deny gay citizens the protection of our families and livelihoods that all other citizens enjoy, especially as the propensity for discrimination runs so strongly against us. Just as discrimination on the basis of the caste system is age-old in India, the age-old and often virulent discrimination against gays is not more acceptable because of its longevity. I’m not sure the need for protection could be stronger. If there has been one fortune in this mad dash to amend the Constitution, it has been how eye opening it has been to decent people that there exists a minority of extreme conservatives a capacity for unreasoning hatred of their fellow citizens.