The conservative mistake on gay rights

I am a proud conservative who believes in the principles of limited government and individual freedom. But there are times when I have to reconcile with members of my own ideology and political party on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage.

In the Indiana General Assembly, the legislature is currently considering whether to allow Hoosier voters to decide on whether marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman in our state constitution.

My first problem with this proposed amendment is that marriage is already defined as between one man and one woman in state statute.

The proponents of the amendment say it would somehow add a layer of protection to “traditional marriage.”

In my own thinking, it is just one of the few reasons that certain members of my party use to defend their positions.

I would even consider the current state law unconstitutional because of my own interpretation of Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana State Constitution.

It simply states “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

How you decide to interpret Section 23 is up to you. But it seems that by singling out individuals based on who can marry is worthy of another serious debate in the legislature with Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution in mind.

Why our state legislators want to send a civil right to the ballot makes no sense to me.

It is a salient issue that will hopefully become a non-issue in the near future. Proponents of the amendment will argue that public opinion is in support of the issue.  State Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, was a sponsor of the amendment and said “30 states where voters have approved the bans, the average vote in favor was 68 percent.”  
But a recent poll in Indiana released March 23 shows that 47 percent, or a “plurality of Hoosiers,” opposed the amendment versus the 44 percent who support it.

To better understand the debate, I think it is important to examine the “generational gap” of support on this issue.

This is exemplified in a CNN poll from 2009 that showed 58 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 believe same-sex marriage should be legal versus the 42 percent of Americans between the ages of 35 and 49 who support legalization.

I respect the deeply held religious convictions of many who support the amendment because I share them.

But I also am mindful that my religious convictions should not dictate the way other people decide to lead their lives.

I am politely reminded of history in times like these when great debates surrounding civil liberties occur. Thomas Jefferson warned our leaders to take heed on issues like these when they did come up.

He said “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

— cjcaudil@indiana.edu