I believe I am every bit as good as my fellow citizens. The difference is that I am not supporting legislation that says a group of fellow citizen’s are not entitled to the same things I am.

1. Sec. 23 of the Indiana Constitution says: “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.” The authors surely understood they were stating a universal principle that would apply to any citizen and any class of citizen. It was only (perhaps) the topic of race that made the framers aware that it was possible for a majority to author laws discriminatory against minorities, and that this violated a fundamental principle of fairness.

2. Read a court decision that does speak to this principle: http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/glrts/lewisharris102506opn.pdf

If I’m not mistaken, the majority on this court was Republican appointed.

3. If you do not support this amendment or the legislation it seeks to shelter from Constitutional challenge, then I apologize for implying that you do.

The dead honest truth is that you consider homosexuals to need the same consideration as race. I have not seen any evidence to give this credence.

I am done feeding the troll, though I do appreciate the research that your responses have prompted.

I do wish that you would quit assuming that “prejudice” and “bigot” as the motivation of any who disagree with same-sex marriage. Quite frankly that is a (literally) prejudiced position.

I have not even decided if a marriage amendment is needed, appropriate or good. I certainly do not see any equal protection argument and the more I read, the less convincing the argument becomes.

I would urge you to think for yourself. I’m asking what the principal equal protection means to YOU as an American citizen. That shouldn’t require research unless you are struggling to find a way of answering that doesn’t have positive implications for how gay citizens should be treated.

If the judge in Morrison v Sadler is right, then there is no reason to have the amendment, for equal protection is not a valid claim.

But it IS a valid claim on the face of it, in my opinion, to anyone who does not bear a prejudice toward gays and who, as a judge, has the courage to apply the words as they appear in black and white in the Constitution.

Most importantly, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on this via Baker v Nelson. In 1971 where the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the Minnesota limit on marriage to opposite-sex unions “does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the case “for want of substantial federal question”. A dismissal is different from a denial of certiorari because it is a denial on the merits of the case and is therefore binding on lower courts. (Hicks v Miranda, 1975)

This precedent has been upheld repeatedly, including the Indiana Court of Appeals in Morrison v. Sadler in 2005.

The equal protection clause was written primarily with race in mind and has since been expanded to include gender. In other words, the Supreme Court has rejected your comparison between same sex unions and racist discrimination.

I AM curious, Joel. Just what does the equal protection mean to you? Do you see no benefit to yourself to ensuring that the equal protection of the laws for others is a concept fully enforced?

Also, Joel, to say that “Marriage is between a man and a woman” is “the definition of marriage”, which is a formulation I so frequently hear, seems to be a language trick. I doubt my parents, for instance, would define marriage in that way. I suspect for them, they would define it more along the following lines: “Marriage is a civil and religious means by which two people in love and destined to be with each other affirm their ever-lasting acceptance, commitment, mutual respect, and support to each other in the presence of God, their church, their family, friends and community, and by which government affords them, and any children they have, mutual rights, protections, and obligations.”

This form of definition seems to me to be much more accurate, revealing the depth of the institution and its impact.

It seems to me that it is telling that the divorce rate among conservative Christians (especially Southern Baptists) is so high… higher than almost all other religious denominations, higher than atheists, higher indeed than same sex couples in Scandinavia. It seems to me that they have been seeking to define marriage in a way that is intended merely to exclude same sex couples, with no other unified basis across time or culture. And they seem least situated to claim any authority on the topic.

It’s like the Columbia Club defining itself at one time as “a club for white people”, rather than, for instance, “a place where citizens engaged in business and politics can meet socially in an environment conducive to the formation of friendships and alliances.” The former is an intentionally exclusive “definition” which had almost nothing to do with the reality of the institution except for the purposes of excluding some citizens who, under the latter definition, would have as much a place in the club as any. In my opinion, it is merely prejudice against the excluded that informs such an exclusive definition, which definition is otherwise devoid of any apparent legitimacy.

Primarily you have one set of concerns which is separate from the concerns of another group. You are concerned (at least these are the points that you bring up) with property rights and certain relationship rights. Various social conservatives are concerned with the actual traditional institution and definition of marriage.

You will note that the language of the amendment has nothing to do with the “legal protections” you talk about, but rather the definition of marriage. You are observing the implications of that definition.

It seems to me that if there is a need for “constitutional” protections, that they can be done in a different way than an alteration of the definition of marriage.

The majority of Americans don’t have wills. And while Tom and I have the documents you describe, we are educated enough to know we need them, who to see to get them, and able to pay for it. (Our estate planning cost us about $800… a significant chunk of change for the average American… and that was just for the basics.) Even then, if I get hit by a train, Tom will have to pay a fairly hefty inheritance tax on half the house, because tax law recognizes no more relationship between us than between total strangers. And if I get rushed to the hospital and Tom rushes from a job site without stopping to find our powers of attorney, he has no more standing at the hospital than perfect stranger…. neither a right to information nor the ability to make decisions about my care…. until he finds those papers.

If all that is required is a will and that is so easy in your opinion, then why bother to offer such protections to husband and wife? The laws provide protections for all those Americans who are married, guidelines that are just and fair, so that death or incapacity does not create further chaos or misery, which your tone leads me to believe you are content to visit upon your fellow human beings are not so protected. Most gay couples, like most Americans, are not likely to have thought through the peril they are in, and will find that their ignorance or lack of means pivots them into crisis, when proper laws might otherwise have assisted.

And you are dismissive. Honestly, I struggle to find polite words to describe the contempt I feel for the cold hearts of people like you, for what I suspect is a willful ignorance about the good of your fellow human beings, and for what I believe is a prejudice that drives you to comment from a perspective of such callous disregard.

It is well that you write from anonymity.

2.) Joel, try this:

“Same sex couples enjoy none of the legal protections currently provided to married couples. The Indiana Constitution reads: ‘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.’ Do you believe that the Constitution should be amended so that this guarantee does not apply to same sex couples and to ensure that they are not given access either to marriage or to any of the legal protections it confers?”

That’s pretty accurate; it is why the amendment is necessary.