Gay marriage hits close to home in Indiana

Debate over marriage rights for same-sex couples increased with the latest Ohio legislation Friday banning gay marriages, making it the 38th state to do so. Accompanying this action is a movement to amend the constitution and permanently define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. \nA State Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts is bucking the trend of anti-gay marriage legislation by paving the way for the first legalized civil marriages for gays in the United States. It becomes the only state with a court decision against the banning of same-sex marriages. \nThese rulings each come after the passage of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed by former President Bill Clinton, which allows states to choose whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Furthermore, it gives the federal definition of marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." \nOn the local level, efforts in Indiana's House of Representatives to hear a resolution, which would similarly define marriage, have encountered a roadblock in the form of Rules Committee Chairman Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City. The House resolution failed to meet a Feb. 2 deadline for a hearing, and Pelath says he will not hear the bill once it gets passed by the Senate.\n"The interesting part of this is that now the majority of both the Senate and the House are in favor of hearing the bill, but this one man is standing in the way of the apparent will of the people of Indiana," said House Communications Spokeswoman Jennifer Hoffman. \nA deadline for final resolution has been set for Mar. 5. \n"We are hearing non-critical bills, and I find it hard to believe that there is no time to preserve the institution of marriage, a foundation of our society," said Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn,\nAs the push for anti-gay marriage terminology to be added to the Indiana Constitution continues, large numbers of coalitions and organizations have begun to speak out against the possibility of such changes. Hoosier Families for the Preservation of the Constitution is one such coalition.\n"We are working to lobby the Indiana General Assembly not to pass this amendment, since current law already prohibits same-sex marriages," said the Coalition's Chairman Wally Paynter. "We also are contacting our federal legislators, urging them to vote against the national constitutional amendment."\nThe Indiana Equality Coalition brings an element of economic argument to the forefront in its description of why Indiana should allow gay marriages. It notes jobs are being diverted from both individuals who seek employment elsewhere and corporations wary of a lack of diversity.\n"Any perception that Indiana lacks a climate of diversity hurts the state's economy. Large corporate enterprises are known to closely scrutinize these issues when deciding to invest in the state's economy by locating and expanding facilities there," the IN Coalition Web site said.\nThe Massachusetts court ruling was based on a state Senate request to give an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of civil unions, a term also used in Vermont to describe same-sex marriages. The request was a result of a decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in which the court ruled against the banning of same-sex marriages and gave the legislature six months to change its laws. \nThe court stated marriage fulfills yearnings for security and safe haven common throughout humanity and that "without the right to choose to marry, same-sex couples are not only denied full protection of the laws, but are excluded from the full range of human experience."\nCiting Brown v. Board of Education, the court noted they were being asked to "create a new legal status, 'civil union,' that is purportedly equal to marriage," yet separate from it.\nLater, the lack of a "rational reason" for the creation of second-class citizens was discussed along with the distinction that "the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."\nThe Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization, met on Jan.12 in Indianapolis to spread its message and educate people about the dangers of a Federal Marriage Amendment.\n"It fails to recognize the historically cautious, conservative and thoughtful approach to amending the Constitution," said HRC member Mark Brostoff, who spoke at the group's convention. "It has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights -- and never to deny liberty to a group of people rather than expand it." \nThe goal of the HRC is to keep discussion focused at the state level, as the 10th Amendment has traditionally been interpreted as giving states exclusive control over marriage regulation. \n"Supporters of the amendment have deeply-held religious reasons which are difficult to argue against," Brostoff said. "Regardless of whether or not people agree with homosexuality, we hope to gain conservative support through appealing to their sense of basic civil and private rights."\nThese rights, as mentioned in the Massachusetts ruling, include adoption, not having to fear for discriminatory job loss and things as simple as being admitted into a partner's hospital room. Many of these protections are nonexistent in Indiana.\nBut gay marriage is only one of several marriage-related issues that have faced American courts in the past. Interracial marriage was a felony in 16 states in the 1960s, until the landmark Loving v. Virginia reversed the ban in 1967. The court argued "marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the 10th Amendment."\nProponents of gay marriage cite this case as support for not passing the proposed amendment. \nFurther, the Loving v. Virginia decision stated laws banning interracial marriages violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment. These clauses are designed to prevent states from depriving any person of "life, liberty or property."\nThe court's conclusion stated "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."\nSome conservative Republicans have already begun to speak in opposition to amending the Constitution. Former Congressman Bob Barr, who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, has called a Constitutional amendment "needlessly intrusive and punitive."\nDuring an October 2000 debate, Vice President Dick Cheney said the issue should be left to the states to resolve. \n"I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area," said Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian.\nIU College Republicans are also weighing in on the preservation of marriage.\n"The preservation of the one man, one woman marriage is very important for us. The Republican Party has always stood for traditional American values, including marriage," said IUCR Political Director Chase Downham. "Although everyone has the right to choose their own lifestyle, no one has the right to redefine marriage"