Dear Hoosiers, Americans and citizens of democracies everywhere,
(This is a long post. Please read it in its entirety, it’s important. Thanks.)
Last week, the Indiana Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 0013. This resolution made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier last month. It will now be voted on by the Indiana House as House Joint Resolution 0007.
These resolutions propose an amendment to Indiana’s constitution that would define marriage in the State of Indiana as only being legitimate when occurring between one man and one woman. It would also mean that “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” In other words, not only will same-sex marriages in the State of Indiana be forever banned by constitutional amendment (over and above the ban already in place under IC 31-11-1-1), but those pesky “civil unions” are out of the question too.
The truth is that it’s doubtful that HJR7 will pass in the House. While the Indiana Senate is dominated by Republicans, the Democrats have a majority in the House and have defeated similar “defense of marriage” amendments in the past.
The fate of this one resolution isn’t what has me so mad, though. I know that HJR7 will almost certainly fail in the House (if it ever even makes it to a full vote). What has me mad is that we have to have this fight almost every legislative session. What makes me mad is that congressional opponents of this and similar measures (who are almost exclusive Democrats, but not all Democrats oppose them…House Democrat Dave Cheatham is actually co-sponsoring HJR7, if you can believe it) seem to focus on all the wrong things when voicing their opposition.
The theme this year seems to be that because IC 31-11-1-1 already prohibits same-sex marriage, SJR13/HJR7 is redundant. Another commonly-expressed objection is that the state’s legislators have enough to worry about in these economically trying times without wasting their time and energy on resolutions like SJR13/HJR7.
Both of these arguments are factually true, but they allow the proponents of same-sex marriage bans to escape this legislative session with their argument intact–namely that these bans are necessary to “protect” the institution of marriage in its “traditional” format.
Opponents of homosexual marriage use the “traditional definition of ‘marriage’” angle to try to press their agenda while not appearing hateful. They’re sort of saying “Hey, we don’t hate gay people. They can do anything they want! It’s just that this ‘marriage’ thing…that’s a special thing for us straight folks.” It’s the same sort of thinly-veiled discrimination that brought us “separate but equal” during this nation’s shameful treatment of its African-American citizens.
Of course, this is ignoring two very important facts that the “defense of marriage” crowd needs to pay very special attention to:
- Their leadership, which is constantly barraging them with “defense of marriage” language, is doing so for pure political gain. These amendments and laws always appear in critical election years when conservative politicians need voter turnout in huge numbers. Where do they go for that? The conservative Christian community, who largely approve of any anti-gay legislation because God told them that being gay is a sin. Most of these legislators who trot out this bile are more guilty of destroying the American family than 100,000 gay people ever could be. Have you noticed how many anti-gay legislators turn out to be closet perverts? The numbers are astonishing. These people don’t care about your principles, they want your votes. Never mind for a moment that I vehemently disagree with your belief that homosexuality is a “sin,” and that I will oppose with all my strength even heartfelt anti-gay legislation…please just remember the next time the politicians tell you that they’re “protecting” marriage that they’re probably cheating on their wives with underage Thai ladyboys.
- The idea that the modern concept of heterosexual marriage (a man and a woman choose to enter into a legal contract uniting them as a single household, presumably because they love each other and wish to start a family) is far from the “traditional” definition. To listen to some of the DOMA-ers, you would think that marriage in its modern form was handed down by God to Moses along with the Ten Commandments, and that the Almighty had intended it to function that way all along. You hear a lot of phrases like “the tradition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years,” etc. They simply couldn’t be more wrong. Marriage is a social construct that existed before the advent of any of the Abrahamic religious traditions. It has meant many different things to many different cultures, ranging from the simple civil services performed by many non-Christian couples today to the elaborate transfers of property in the past wherein marriage basically served as a way for a father to trade on his daughter’s sexuality in order to better himself socially or materially. What is practiced in United States (and much of the Western world) today is, by definition, a “civil union.” The government recognizes that two people have decided to form a household and grants them certain legal protections. Any religious aspect of the event must be conferred by the appropriate clergy and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the legal status that is commonly known as “being married.”
But the fact that the “traditional marriage” argument is complete nonsense isn’t the most important reason why these sorts of legal efforts should be stopped. To put it plainly, and to repeat an argument that I have offered on dozens of occasions (and never once had successfully refuted), these measures are illegal.
In Indiana in particular, bans on same-sex marriage (both the existing law and the proposed constitutional amendment) violate both state and federal constitutional protections.
Article 1, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana clearly 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.”
Since “marriage” is a legally-conferred status in Indiana (and thus granted by a past session of the General Assembly), it is therefore unconstitutional to refuse to grant that same status to all of the citizens of the state.
And of course, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution famously says:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
These seem to be to be pretty clear-cut reasons why SJR13/HJR7 and IC 31-11-1-1 are unconstitutional and should be defeated and repealed, respectively.
If anyone with a better understanding of constitutional law can explain to me why the existence of these state and federal constitutional statutes don’t prohibit bans on gay marriage, then I would like for them to contact me and explain why I’m wrong.
In the meantime, I demand that each and every legislator who has voted or will vote in favor of these and similar measures explain themselves. The oath of office for the Indiana General Assembly includes a promise to support both the state and federal constitutions. I want some of these people to explain to me how their support for these anti-gay efforts matches up with their pledge to support these constitutions.
I would also like citizens who support these efforts to either explain to me why they don’t consider them unconstitutional, or at least admit that in this particular case they just don’t care if it’s consitutional at all. I would much rather opponents of equal rights for LGBT citizens just admit that they don’t care about civil liberties than to continue to profess to love the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, liberty, America and apple pie while simultaneously pushing insidious, hateful, discriminatory and most decidedly anti-liberty legislative agendas.
I would encourage each and every one of you to do the same. Write your legislators who have supported such measures and demand an explanation. Write your legislators who haven’t supported them and commend their opposition and encourage them to continue it. Demand that unconstitutional laws be repealed. Challenge your friends, neighbors and family who support these laws and amendments. If they claim to love liberty and respect our Constitution, ask them how they can in good conscience support these things.
The fight for equal liberties for gay and lesbian Americans has been quiet for a long time. Maybe it’s time to get louder. Instead of urging and pleading, maybe it’s time to demand and insist. Instead of waving rainbow flags, maybe it’s time to lob a few rocks. Instead of sitting back while under-funded and understaffed non-profits try desperately to stem the tide of hate, maybe it’s time to rally around these groups and give them our support, our money, our time. Instead of waiting for the highly-organized, highly-motivate and well-funded evangelical lobbyists to get these laws in the hands of greedy politicians willing to push them for a chunk of the evangelical vote, it’s time to organize a few PACs of our own and threaten a few politicians with the loss of votes. Gay and lesbian Americans and those who love and support them can be a powerful voting block too, but they must organize.
When one of these measures comes up in your state legislature, make sure your lawmakers are inundated with letters from everyone you know who opposes it. Let’s not send hundreds of letters, emails and phone calls, let’s send tens of thousands.
If you live in Indiana, please contact your state senator. If they voted in favor of SJR13, demand an explanation. I’ll be sending a letter to my senator tomorrow asking for just that. You can see a copy of it here (.rtf), and you may feel free to use its language.
If you live in Indiana, please contact your state representative and ask them to oppose HJR7 on exactly the grounds I listed above. I’ll be sending a letter to my representative tomorrow asking them to do just that. You can see a copy of it here (.rtf), and you may feel free to use its language.
If you live anywhere at all in the United States, have conversations with your friends and family who may oppose gay marriage and ask them the tough questions about equality, liberty and the promises of our most important founding document. Ask them why they oppose the equal protection of the law for all Americans.
If you live anywhere in a democracy of any sort, please be active in your respective political systems. What happens in America can happen anywhere. Don’t let us export hate to your country, don’t let your “conservative” politicians press agendas similar to what we’re seeing here.
If you’re like me, someone who identifies as heterosexual but supports equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, get involved. Sign the Straight for Equality pledge, join your local chapter of PFLAG, etc.
I firmly believe that the tide will turn and eventually people of all races, cultures, religions and sexual orientations will be allowed to associate and form households freely in the United States. I think that we will look back on these years when so many Americans opposed that freedom with shame, just as we do when we look back on our treatment of other minority groups in America. When that time comes, I hope at least some of us can look back and say that we fought hate, ignorance and political greed and were on the right side of history.
