Letter to the editor: Indiana gay marriage amendment is a buffet of trouble
“Only a marriage between one man and one 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.” – House Joint Resolution No. 6
HJR-6 is a suggested amendment to our state constitution comprised of only two sentences. How will these two sentences affect LGBT Hoosiers and how bad can they really be?
To begin, the first sentence does nothing to change the legality of same-sex marriage in Indiana. It is already illegal for a gay couple to marry.
The second sentence, however, is a buffet of trouble for Indiana’s future.
It will result in more “brain drain” for our state. Brain drain is an often mentioned problem in Indiana and one that will be exacerbated by this amendment. Children in Indiana that identify as gay know they will never get a happy-ever-after if they stay in Indiana if this amendment passes. Even children that do not identify with the LGBT community will be less likely to return from college to a home that will not give their friends the rights they have.
It will result in less talent and less business coming to our state. Gay couples married in other states will never move to a state that will not recognize their union nor will they raise children here. As such, bigger businesses will less likely move here if not all of their employee are treated equal. Local companies are already offering insurance to domestic partners to welcome gay couples, why harm their efforts to attract talent.
It will result in more litigation in our state. Should married gay couples happen to move to Indiana after this amendment passes, their marriage would be void causing confusion in how the state will treat them at hospitals¹, apply their military benefits², recognize their children³, grant their divorces4, and probate.
It will result in invalidating common law marriages. The amendment does not explicitly state that unmarried same-sex couples “shall not be valid.” The amendment is worded such that all common law marriages will be invalidated. Nine states still have common law marriage currently recognized by Indiana.5
It will result in confusion due to ambiguous language. What does “substantially similar” actually mean?
It will result in codifying intolerance. This amendment cannot stop gay relationships, gay love, or gay sex. Passing this amendment will not strengthen, empower, or super-legitimize our heterosexual marriages. This amendment will do only one thing: demonstrate to the rest of the nation that we value our lifestyle more than we value each other.
Joseph Huddleston JasperTell your legislators to vote NO to stop the passage of HJR-6.
Sign the petition at http://www.FreedomIndiana.org.
1. http://americablog.com/2013/04/missouri-gay-hospital-visitation-remove-research-medical-center.html
2. http://www.stripes.com/news/us/neither-side-budging-on-guard-benefits-1.250663
3. http://jezebel.com/5812478/more-gay-couples-adopt-still-face-discrimination
4. http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/news/2013-11-05/texas-supreme-court-considers-same-sex-divorce/
http://www.today.com/news/gay-couples-divorce-comes-extra-costs-6C10660976
5. Common law marriage in Indiana was banned in 1958. Existing common marriages were grandfathered. Nine states still have common law marriage that Indiana recognizes via the principle of per lex loci celebrationis (by law of place of celebration).
To present a fact overlooked, Texas passed a Marriage amendment in 2005 and is now regularly the #1 or #2 economic growth state in the USA. The other state high economic growth state? North Dakota who also has a marriage amendment like what Indiana is asking for. So, the economic growth argument the opponents use is completely false.
http://marriage.laws.com/gay/state-laws/texas
http://marriage.laws.com/gay/state-laws/north-dakota-gay-marriage
I post this not to take a side on the amendment but to point out the mis-truth being presented here. I have no issue with the State Congress passing the amendment to let the people decide what they want for the State of Indiana. That is liberty is action.
http://www.areadevelopment.com/Top-States-for-Doing-Business/Q3-2013/survey-results-state-analysis-888237.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type
Just to offer more stats to my point. A Marriage amendment and economic growth have nothing to do with each other. On the above top ten list 9 out of the top 10 states to do business in have a marriage amendment similar or exactly like what Indiana’s Congress is proposing.
My point is, the argument on the pro or con is not related to economic development. Lets debate on the real issue, what do the people of Indiana want as the moral foundation of their laws.
And what moral foundation calls for gays to not be allowed to marry?
Please, provide citations.
Mat 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Marriage is a divine institution from its foundation and defined by God.
If you are going to quote scripture, please quote it in context.
Mat 19:3
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
[then Jesus said what you quoted…but then he said more]
Mat 19:7-9
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
That scripture is about divorce and Jesus calls divorce adultery.
No where in that scripture is Jesus saying to forbid homosexuality or gay marriage.
It would seem to me if you think that scripture is the basis for morality from which to legislate then you are saying we need to outlaw divorce not gay marriage.
“I have no issue with the State Congress passing the amendment to let the people decide what they want for the State of Indiana. That is liberty is action.”
Sounds like what some of those southern states were saying about slavery back in Lincoln’s time?
Joseph’s letter was filled with presuppositions that are not backed by any facts. The idea that a society cannot flourish or even survive without the presence of homosexuals is historically untrue. In fact, throughout history, every society that has embraced homosexuality has suffered demise. I am proud of our legislators who have taken this important stand for righteousness in Indiana concerning marriage. I encourage them to pass HJR-6.
Homosexuality has been embraced (to some extent) by most societies throughout history and most of the societies flourished longer than the US has been a nation.
To imply homosexuality leads to society’s collapse with the statement “throughout history, every society that has embraced homosexuality has suffered demise” is just wrong.
Most societies throughout history have suffered demise and it wasn’t because they accepted homosexuality.
Since you consider it a “righteous” stand, I would like to point out that Jesus says nothing in the bible is about Homosexuality.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Rom 1:26-28 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Jesus is God the Son and there is no division of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
So yes, Righteous stand.
2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Really, you are going to quote Leviticus? Well, then let’s just go to Leviticus chapter 19. There are quite a few laws in there we don’t keep. Are you game for legislating all these, too? (We probably should do 33.)
19 Do not mate different kinds of animals. ‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
20 If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the tent of meeting for a guilt offering to the Lord. 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the Lord for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.
26 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
27 Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.
30 Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the Lord.
31 Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.
33 When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
As for your Roman’s scripture, I will once again finish the passage:
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Sure, in the Epistles from Paul, we see homosexuality being referenced but nowhere is it calling for it to be outlawed. No don’t forget, god did give us free will and all. (As a side note, many theologians say that this Romans verse is about pederasty and not all types of homosexuality.)
So now, I will go just over to the next chapter of Romans and see what god has to say about being all judgey against others.
Romans 2
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
So to recap, nothing you quoted in the New Testament calls for homosexuality or gay marriage to be outlawed.
While you did quote Old Testament, which calls for the death of homosexuals (in for a penny in for a pound), I think we can agree that OT laws are can of worms we do not want to open as far as unfollowed laws go.
i agree, ty for your wise words, we have been working on this for awhile now. My civil union wife (we had in Ill.) will move and a lot of our LGBTQ people and Allies said the say thing, which will hurt the great state of Indiana. There are a lot of big companies that want to back Indiana. If people can not drop their differences then Indiana can not grow. Indiana has gone down in the last few years with its economy , putting us in about 41st place where we use to be between 1 and 10. My civil union, does not hurt any of my heterosexual friends marriage, so what is the problem? Please do not say religion, We also believe in God. But it is sad when my Christian’s put us down. When the Bible clearly says love your neighbors as thyself. etc. We all have to get along, you don not have to approve of what I do, But we have to learn tolerance,respect and to live together. I don’t judge heterosexual people nor do I involve myself in their private business, so why should my civil union and or marriage concern everyone else? It’s nobody’s business, as its not my business what my heterosexual friends do behind closed doors. we do not put heterosexuals down so why put us down when it comes to the ones we love? I want to be with my wife, to hold her hand when she come’s to the end of her life as she wants to do with me. Someone I love to be there . We want our rights recognized and to be equal.I also agree with your “Brain drain” comment. So i’m with you Joseph Huddleston and everything you just wrote. My wife went to the state house a couple of weeks ago for the letter writing event for Freedom Indiana, over 8000 letters and post cards were mailed and more coming! I urge everyone in joining this fight to reject HJR_6.
If the amendment is offered to “protect traditional marriage”, consider the following. Massachusetts has had same sex marriage for almost 10 years. Massachusetts has the lowest or 2nd lowest divorce rate in the nation and a lower than average rate of juvenile delinquency. Arkansas bans gay marriage and has the 2nd highest rate of divorce.
Seeing the argument below hurts my brain. I just *love* how religion and morality are used over and over as the reason to prohibit couples of the same biological sex to get married. Whose religion should we continue to use in this discussion? To be fair, the dominant religion in the country is based on Judeo-Christian ideology. However, to _solely_ use that as a measuring stick seriously disenfranchises the religious minorities in this country (who may or may not have a prohibition on same sex unions). Are we then saying that the mores of Jews, Quakers, Hindus, Buddhists, Native Americans (who still practice their traditional religions), Pagans, Agnostics, and Atheists (Yes Atheists have their own moral standards, believe it or not.) are somehow less valid a viewpoint than the majority?
I had thought that this country was supposed to be a place that other countries look to as a guiding example of equality and fairness. Yet other countries such as South Africa seem to be years ahead of us on this issue.
But hey, it’s not as if what anyone else does in the privacy of their own home is actually any of my business anyway. It would just be nice to see it all treated equally.
(Personally, I say that if we can’t agree to have equal access to *civil* marriage, then we should all have no access to civil marriage. Whatever happens religiously is again, none of my business.)