I’m still not sure why I haven’t moved yet.
A proposed ban on same-sex marriages now faces just one more hurdle in the House before Hoosiers will be able to vote on the constitutional amendment. The Indiana Senate voted 39-10 Monday to pass the amendment, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
State law already bans same-sex marriages, but supporters of the constitutional amendment have maintained their measure would prevent activist judges from changing that law.
“By passing this amendment, we are giving the people the right to decide whether the definition of marriage should be preserved and put beyond the reach of the courts,” said Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield.
Putting aside that definitions of words do change, that this is not scary, and rarely involves “activist judges” (see sociolinguistics), I think somebody’s state senate has been watching a little too much Fox News. Indiana doesn’t have activist judges! Indiana has judges that reappoint the status quo whenever and wherever possible, and a governor that plans to sell the state’s assets piecemeal to massive corporations as quickly as he can! In the meantime the state still has no legislature outlining the crime of bestiality, although we apparently have the time and resources to outlaw gay marriage. Again. For the second time.
Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, said the amendment reflects an intolerance of same-sex couples. “If you think sexual orientation is a matter of nature, then this resolution makes no sense and is discriminatory,” Lanane said. “If you believe homosexuality is somehow a learned behavior, maybe this resolution makes sense, but I still say it’s discriminatory.”
Lanane called Hershman’s intent to protect marriage “laughable.” Hershman defended the amendment, saying it did not discriminate against gays.
“We break no ground by reaffirming what has always been,” he said.
And herein lies the rub. The state has no business whatsoever legally recognizing what is “sacred” and/or “sacrament.” That is the church’s job, and here’s to all the denominations working through the nuances of that one together. But this issue goes beyond merely recognizing legal “marriage” for same-sex couples in Indiana, it also aims to curb any domestic partnership arrangements that may be allowed through state employers, for example state-run universities, based on a recently ruled Michigan law which “prohibited state institutions from granting fringe benefits to employees who lived with domestic partners but were not legally married.”
Lanane questioned the impact of the amendment’s second sentence, which says neither the constitution nor state law can be construed as giving “the legal incidents of marriage” to unmarried couples or groups.
He argued the amendment could prevent public universities from offering domestic-partner benefits and could keep unmarried heterosexual couples from receiving protection under the state’s domestic violence laws.
“In this case, we simply are allowing people to express their will,” [Hershman] said. “In my opinion, a constitutional ballot question is the ultimate expression of democracy.”
Or in other words, he hopes Hoosiers are just as small-minded and hateful as he is. Far from being merely a homo-hatin’ bill, this has an effect on all unmarried couples who might otherwise receive benefits from the state’s existing domestic partner laws. Indiana, bless her, is your ultra-conservative utopia, where the state is all too willing to ingratiate religious and “moral” reforms and turn away from recognizing any definition of family that doesn’t involve a hetero marriage at the top of a many-limbed family tree.
I’d be happy to engage in a state swap about now: Any conservative bloggers living in a blue state you can’t stand? Get your Choose Life! license plate on the anniversary of Roe! We’re bringing Jesus back to the big house!
But a word of advice for rookie Hoosiers: don’t bring up the time zone issue, especially in Pulaski county, unless you want your ass pummeled by the faint light of the 4pm sunset.
Related Reading:
When the local newspaper asked “How do you feel about the state ban on same-sex marriage?” Chuck gave perhaps the most amusing answer I could imagine — but it does require an extensive understanding of the idiocy of Indiana state lawmakers’ concerns. Grapple away.
I’m having an interesting overlay of unrelated things. My grandfather lives in Indiana. I tend to view Indiana as an old-fashioned state, because I associate it with my grandpa and he lives in a very old fashioned town. My grandpa, however, is a lefty radical in political terms; but his lefty rad-ness is sort of earnest and dorky and old-fashioned.
Because of these associations, I first rolled my eyes and thought what dorks Hershman et al must be, and what dinosaurs, as if *all* people in Indiana were almost 90 and working from the mindset of WWII. Strange reaction.
Exactly.
And, I suppose I do not understand: Indiana code already prohibits same-sex marriage, doesn’t it?
My most sincere fear is the Hoosiers are, in fact, as bigoted as Sen. Hershman et al. hopes “we” are. Really all the eveidence you need of that is IC 31-11-1-1 as quoted above.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if Mr. Hershman and his colleagues/cronies can’t keep their nose out of grown folks’ business, I hope Big Gay Al sticks a Big Gay Foot up his Big Fundamental Ass.
foresmac, I agree. I have the distinct displeasure of having spent my formative years in Southern Indiana, and you can hardly find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. It’s got all the good-ole boy charm of Alabama, with its farmer’s field cross-cemetery and its overbearingly intolerant Catholicism. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if Hoosiers are, in fact, that bigoted.
I’ve gotta get out of Indiana before it goes all Mad Max on us - I just can’t figure out which state would be the safest to escape to.
Well, this ought to be fun.
My revered grandmother, who now lives in Hobart, lived for a few years with a elderly retired psychotherapist a while back. No marriage - by then they were in their eighties (Grandma is around 96 or so nowadays, and only a little less active now that cataracts are, at least temporarily, taking her off the road).
All I have to do is tell my conservative relatives further south that this law would have declared her in an illegal, illicit relationship.
“But that law’s not for her!” they would say. “It’s about them gays!”
“Sorry, her situation counts.”
And then their heads would explode, because you never cross Grandma in my family.
And afterwards I’d get to watch their pretzel logic in action to be able to deal with both events now lodged in their heads.
But I prefer to do that from a distance. And that’s why I now live in the Pacific Northwest.
Oh, and most Hoosiers are too lazy to go “all Mad Max”.
This is a state much like southeastern ones in that it’s made up of a passel of small to medium sized towns - where Lauren lives is “the almost big city” out there (and fast becoming, if not in fact yet, a bedroom exurban community for those employed in the Indianapolis area).
And they like their small-town mentality, most of them. And it’s fine and dandy if you can blend in with that mentality - I lived in Terre Haute a million years ago, and my parents have lived for almost a decade now in Lebanon, so it’s easy enough to adapt to - but if you can’t, well….
The irony is that, I suspect, when the law adversely affects people they know in these small communities, the response will be much like regarding my Grandma - “Oh, they shouldn’t count!” Even the local gay couple or two in a town like Lebanon will be seen as getting a raw deal by a fair piece of the community, while they grit their teeth at the though of homosexuality in general “out there”.
But then sometimes you have to learn the hard way.
If I remember right, the gay marriage issue is the topic of the Courier’s Sunday Soapbox this week. I plan to read the reader responses for a good laugh and a good cry.
The whole thing just makes me feel so sad and mostly powerless. I write and call and they still pull this shit, and I try to support my gay friends all I can… because damn it, I love them. And it’s bull. And I want to move out of this Godforsaken state once I graduate but if they drive us semi-sane people out, I’m afraid to see how much more to shit this place is all going to go.
I hope I’m at least a little bit coherent. ‘Cause it’s really hard to form words when I just want to curl up and cry at seeing how horribly, horribly hateful people can be.
To make matters worse, I just got here after having looked at a few threads on the Evansville forum of Topix.net. Made me feel downright dirty just looking at it. Right about now, I’m so wishing I were anywhere but here.
Lauren, do you have a link to the text of this proposed amendment?
Zuzu:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2007/RES/SJ0007.1.html
MQ, where in Indiana are you?
Well, we can’t swap but I have a big rambling old house in the country in a very liberal state, with built in playmates for Ethan. You’re welcome anytime! My company even offers benefits for domestic partners and is very pro-diversity.
Chef, ^ sounds like you’ve got some competition!
Yikes, that’s a scary bill.
And on a day when New Jersey just said it would recognize out-of-state SSMs and civil unions (they just won’t use the word “marriage,” which makes my eyes roll out of my head).
I couldn’t find a link that gave your e-mail address, but I’ve added you to my RSS feed. This is an awesome blog!
I run bilerico.com - Indiana’s largest LGBT group blog. Would you be interested in exchanging links with us?
Thanks, Bil. You’re added.
Evansville. Just about as close to Kentucky as you can get without actually being there.
I was in Evansville for a conference in Spring last year and it was beautiful. The dorms, however, suck ass.
Ah, you must’ve been at UE. The accomodations at USI are much comfier.
One advantage, at least, from lacking finances or willingness to go 50 grand in debt to stay at UE.
And yes, we do have our pretty areas around here. Wish the general attitudes were pretty to match.