Inefficient intolerance

Last week, the Indiana State Senate approved a joint resolution endorsing an amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. This amendment would effectively act as a permanent ban on gay marriage in the state of Indiana. The amendment now goes to the House. If it passes, it will be put to a vote during November’s general election, and if approved by a majority of voters, it will become part of the state Constitution.\nThis is a disaster in a staggering number of ways.\nFirst, as an IDS staff editorial earlier this week already noted, there is a laundry list of issues that are significantly more pressing. The most basic issue is that there’s a law that says essentially the same thing already. The only point to the amendment would be to make the preexisting law permanent, which shouldn’t really be an issue right now. Besides that, though, the state is in the midst of a tax debacle which got former Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson voted out of office. But in reality, it is the state legislators who designed the system of bureaucracy that is at the heart of the problem. \nA related problem is that these other, more important issues really seem to be more important to the voters. As I said earlier, a mayor lost his office almost solely over the tax debacle, so this is clearly a high priority for people. There hasn’t been nearly the clamor recently for such an amendment as there was in Indianapolis all summer. This is even showing on a national level, as the presidential candidates have — to this point, at least — not really differentiated themselves based on gay rights. Instead, they’re concentrating more on the economy and foreign policy. The statehouse should take a page from their book.\nIf that wasn’t all bad enough, the most important problem with this issue is that this amendment is oppressive. It is denying homosexuals the same privileges as heterosexuals, and that should automatically throw up red flags to all Americans. All of the reasoning behind denying gay marriage is fundamentally flawed. The fact that two men can marry will not affect the strength of the bond between me and my wife. The fact that procreation is impossible is irrelevant, because it’s not exactly like the human race is endangered. And civil unions are not good enough — they perpetuate the “separate but equal” doctrine that was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1954. This is the 21st century. We are supposed to be the smartest and most advanced species on the planet. And yet, we are still cordoning ourselves off into groups and acting like our differences really mean something. It’s well past time for humanity to grow up and start acting civilly. We’re all people. It’s time to start acting like it.