Letter to the editor: In opposition to HJR-3 (gay marriage amendment)
The proposed amendment to Indiana’s constitution, HJR-3, reads as follows:
Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimonies from both sides on Monday, January 13th, regarding this amendment, and they could vote at any time on whether to kill the amendment or put it up for popular vote.
Some proponents of the bill argue that this decision should be left up to the voters. They say that judges or legislators should not make the decision on something as important as marriage. But this stance is problematic.
First off, keep in mind that gay marriage in Indiana is already illegal. The first sentence in this amendment simply duplicates existing law.
Proponents have argued that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary because without it a judge could rule that the current law defining marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. However, this issue has already come up in recent years and Indiana judges have always upheld Indiana’s current marriage laws. Even if this amendment passes though, it can still be appealed and overturned by Indiana’s supreme court. There is no way to completely block judges from making a decision on the constitutionality of this issue. Also be sure to keep in mind that this is precisely what judges are supposed to do. It is not some abuse of power or loophole for a judge to find something unconstitutional. It is simply how the separation of powers has ben constructed in the United States.
The real problem with this amendment, though, comes with the second sentence. It states that a status “substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”
This sentence makes this amendment not simply about same sex marriage. Say it with me: HJR-3 IS NOT JUST ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE. This amendment would affect everyone in a domestic partnership. That includes heterosexual couples as well.
But what qualifies as a status “substantially similar” to marriage? How many rights can be given to a domestic partnership before it becomes “substantially similar” to marriage? What is the one right that crosses that line? It certainly is not obvious. And no legislator has been able to give a direct answer. States that have passed similar amendments have already had to deal with many lawsuits related to this exact question. And guess who gets to decide. Judges. This bill doesn’t leave anything up to the people. It simply forces the people to vote on vague language that will then be interpreted by the exact judges that proponents claim should not have the power on this issue.
Legislators attempted to correct this problem by introducing a house bill (HB 1153) which clarifies some rights that they did not intend to be taken away. This bill solves nothing. First, when a judge does have to make a ruling on what the amendment means, they do not have to consider a bill such as this. Judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution, and they could actually end up finding sections of this bill unconstitutional if this amendment passes, even though it was meant to clarify the amendment itself. Legislative intent is not necessarily important to judges when considering the Constitution. But even if the bill were added to the amendment itself it would still be unhelpful. Although it clarifies some rights it does not include everything that would be harmful to those in domestic partnerships. For instance, hospital visitation rights are not mentioned in HB 1153. A lawyer could even make the argument that every right not included in HB 1153 should be denied to unmarried individuals. Who knows whether that argument would be considered valid by any individual judge. But it would certainly be made.
The bottom line is this is simply a bad, confusing, and vague bill. If you want the people to decide on this issue, then urge legislators to craft a bill that is clear enough that the people at least know for what they are voting.
Besides these legal problems, I personally have an even deeper problem with this amendment. This amendment does more damage than just taking away rights. It is dehumanizing to the core.
This bill says to every gay and lesbian person in Indiana: “Your relationship with the person you love is different and less than mine. Your relationship is so much less than mine that it is not even substantially similar. Therefore, it does not deserve substantially similar rights.”
Thinking about someone saying this to my gay and lesbian friends in my life that I love with all my heart makes me absolutely sick. Thinking about children with two fathers or two mothers hearing this about their parents makes me livid. Before you support this amendment, think about the real people that it affects. Gay and lesbian relationships are not simply a concept or a philosophy to be debated. We are discussing real people with hearts, minds, and families.
LGBTQ people are already looked at as an “other” in our society. Gay and lesbian couples in Indiana already have to feel less than every day when they are denied the right to marry the person they love. Homosexual couples who have children and have been committed to each other for years turn on the TV to see celebrities married and divorced within a month, marriage in the form of a reality TV show, sports stars getting married for the 10th time, married men and women of all religions, married men and women of all races, and married men and women committing an abundance of Biblically interpreted sins in terms of their marriage. And yet somehow this committed homosexual couple is denied the legal rights that all of these other couples receive.
I can’t even imagine the hurt that these couples must feel. It’s no wonder that LGBTQ kids are the targets of bullying when they see their parents constructing laws this way. Gay people must be really bad if they are the ones that we pick to deny the right to marry over all these other examples, right? What other explanation is there?
LGBTQ people already have to deal with this reality in Indiana everyday. Think about this before you support HJR-3 in an attempt to take away even more rights from these already unmarried couples.
It is true that LGBTQ people are not substantially similar to myself as a straight person. They are absolutely equal.
So I will stand beside my LGBTQ equals that I love. And I will fight with all my power until they have every single right that I do.
Sarah Barry, Jasper
THANK YOU SARAH BARRY, SO PROUD OF YOU AND GLAD YOU ARE AN ALLIE
A voice of reason!
LIBERTY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
There has been a lot of talk about changing the definition of marriage. One of the most central premises that have been raised to support redefining marriage is the issue of liberty. The homosexual community declare that it is their right to be married and for their “marriage” to be recognized by the state.
At first glance, that may seem to have some validity. And yet, does it? Suppose there was a person who decided that he wanted to call a chair a table. He would argue that a table can have four legs and a chair has four legs. Also, a table has a flat surface upon which an item may rest and a chair also has a surface on which items may be placed. Therefore, he wants chairs to be redefined as tables.
His main argument is that, as a free American, he has the right to call this chair anything he wants. Not only that, but in the spirit of tolerance, the nation should also officially define chairs as tables and recognize them as such.
What is wrong with this scenario? Much of the problem here has to do with the understanding of freedom as defined by the Constitution. Liberty of the individual, as well as freedom of speech does allow this man to call all chairs tables. He has the right to do so. But is the state obligated to redefine chairs as tables? Obviously not.
In order to have a marriage, you need a husband and a wife, male and female. That is what marriage is. Two men or two women in a homosexual relationship are not married. They are in a homosexual relationship. They are no more married than that chair is a table.
Now, because of their right to freedom of speech, they may declare that they are married. However, neither the state nor anyone else has the obligation to accept their definition.