Civil Discourse Now

Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

What are the arguments against marriage equality?

   Our Show today will focus on the efforts by some in the Indiana General Assembly to amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage as between "one man" and "one woman." This week I have advanced arguments against the amendment, also opposed, amongst others, by major corporations (e.g., Eli Lilly, Cummins) that do business here. Earlier in the week, I invited several proponents of the measure to be guests today. Unfortunately, those folks ether are out of town on vacation, out of town on seminars, or have prior commitments.

   Therefore, I am left to advance arguments I have seen posted that favor the amendment.

   The first, and what appears to be the most dominant, argument is that any marital institution except as between "one man" and "one woman" is against principles set forth in "The Holy Bible." I would respond to this argument with several points. This country was not founded as a theocracy. This country was not founded as a Christian nation. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides "Congress shall enact no law respecting an enactment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In an early treaty with Tripoli, the United States affirmed it is not a Christian country. To advocate discrimination, based on religion,  against a group of people contradicts the Constitution.

   Second, there is an argument, advanced by people such as Peter Heck in Kokomo, that marriage equality is a product of the 1960s movement based on sexual anarchy and fulfillment of one's pleasure as ultimate goals and that recognition of marriage between people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender will lead to the destruction of our society . Mr. Heck has gone so far as to say there is no such thing as "homosexuality." I have read his references to homosexualism. First, people who hold this view should get past the notion that the events of the 1960s occurred. Second, these folks also should realize that the generations that have followed the "baby boomers"---that generation named, ironically, for the way in which men who returned from fighting over seas during World War II wanted (pretty quickly) to have sex---generally are more progressive than previous generations on the question of marriage equality. Finally, people who want to get married, again generally, are not the hedonistic, parade-going thong-wearers with whom Mr. Heck expresses so much disdain. The people who want to get married wish to do so to express their love for each other, provide for each other, and not have to hide the fact of their union from the World. I fail to see how recognition of marriage equality breaks down society. If anything, marriage equality will result in society becoming more orderly.

   Third, there is the view expressed by my libertarian (or is that Libertarian?) friends that the State should have no say or participation even in marriage between "one man" and "one woman." At least that view treats everyone in a non-discriminatory fashion. If we are to do away with marriage, then we should do away with it now, and save all the money on the court challenges that soon will follow if this constitutional amendment is adopted.

   The polls would indicate Hoosiers oppose the amendment. A Bowen Center poll conducted late lasy year indicated 54 percent oppose the amendment. One person has written---then let the voters decide; put it before them. First, I would ask, "Why?" If the polls show opposition, employers oppose the measure, and it will certainly be challenged in court if it is passed, why waste the resources? Also, I am a bit paranoid of the ways in which voters, in this State, are deterred from voting. Finally, I think we should avoid adoption of a discriminatory provision from the Indiana Constitution at all costs. The Constitution is meant to protect rights, not deprive individuals of rights. The Bill of Rights was adopted out of fears by some of the Framers that government could take away their rights. There were no arguments advanced, of which I have read, that insisted discrimination of some sort be placed in the Constitution.

   The Show today will be at Lil Peanut Productions, 735 North Lynhurst, Suite B. Our guests will be Richard Richard Sutton, executive director of Indiana Equality Action; Annette Siegel Gross who has been active in PFLAG and is part of the effort of Freedom Indiana to oppose the amendment; and, via Skyoe from New York, Hoosier native Tanya Domi, Director of Media Relations and Spokesperson for the Graduate Center, City University of New York and an adjunct professor at Columbia University. I would have invited Mr. Heck, but he has not responded to my previous invitations to be a panelist.

   Indiana is about to jolt itself backwards. As other States rec   

Views: 69


You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now


  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2022   Created by Mark Small.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

My Great Web page