WTF is going on in the State House? Gay marriage

Gay marriage in the scheme of things

The issues of gay marriage and sexuality often come up in this publication. As a forefront and passionate dispute in today’s changing society, the debate about gay marriage happens to be one battleground in the war that is sexuality in society.

The Indiana Senate just passed a state constitutional amendment that would not only bar same-sex marriage, but also possibly remove any same-sex recognition from local or business relationships, such as hospital visitation rights or worker benefits.

It seems like with triumphant emphasis, Indiana, where same-sex marriage is already banned under state statute, is attempting to put a heavy lid on top of the boiling cauldron of sexuality today.

Unfortunately, while politicians view this battle in a framework of victory or defeat, the fact that this debate remains an issue erodes the well-being of our society and its individuals.

This issue is more than hospital visit rights or work benefits for same-sex partners. This is about a society that rejects its own individuals.

As a community finally decides to come from an underground and turn rejection not only into acceptance but inclusion, this debate doesn’t become an issue of government; it becomes an issue of society.

The unwarranted infringement on individual freedom and personal status proves that this issue fully encompasses ending a negative right.

Society is wrongfully undermining a community of individuals and using government as its means to do so.

With government as the battleground, the issue of gay marriage, homosexuality and sexual minorities in society doesn’t become another political issue, but instead becomes a civil rights issue.

The one true fact of the matter remains: People are unjustly suppressed for who they are.

As individuals and as members of a larger community, we personally must not limit, oppose or ignore this issue and the people who are affected by it. We remain the source of tradition and culture, which holds together the structure of our society.

Historically, this society has attacked individuals based on who they are. Should we continue to use the past as a basis for the future, we are constrained to recommit to our shortcomings in this lack of inclusion.

Individuals must base opinion not on what some have said but what they know all to believe, feel and be. Individuals have a responsibility in a community to empathize with all who are in it. Tolerance, or the restraint of disagreement or hatred, is not acceptable in the place of understanding, empathy or compassion.

Thus we all have a stake and responsibility in this issue to not suppress the community, but instead to further its purpose of inclusion, progression and compassion.

Gay rights and sexual identity are not just concerning homosexuals; they concern everyone.

As both the maker and taker for cultural values in modern society, the government’s role in sexuality must not be based on what tradition tells us, but instead must be focused on protecting, encouraging and fostering the growth and betterment of the individual and the community. But while in truth encouraging individualism and community only benefit civilization, many who oppose gay rights believe the opposite.

To found the wrongful claim, this side of the debate has to frame its argument in terms of speculation and cultural norms.

Normal political debate is based on logical reasoning of fact, but policy based on speculation is no better than policy based on pure emotion. To allow this debate to be fueled purely by sentiment proves this modern political issue should truly be no issue at all.

Government has been a tool for tradition with dire and detrimental results. It is time instead for government to encourage individuals and their right for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

History is a wise teacher. It allows us to garner experience that otherwise we would have never known.

It allows us to see where we have failed so that someday we may remedy injustice, correct wrongs and cultivate civilization.

 The trick is not to use the same arguments as history, but instead to use individual judgment, collective empathy and logical reasoning for each of the historical and modern conceptions of the issue.

For gay rights, we have come to a time of reckoning where we must face the past to form a better future.

Whether individually, through government or somewhere in between, the time has come to end the suppression and rejection that has manifested itself as gay marriage bans, homosexual violence and societal disapproval.

It is time to truly embrace diversity and individuality in a civilization that could capture a new era of progress, unity and freedom.

­— mdshowal@indiana.edu


What civil unions mean

The Indiana Legislature supported a ban on civil unions as a part of its larger push to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

What should we understand this additional bit of discrimination to mean?

Indianapolis Star columnist Matthew Tully reads it as a sign that the amendment would pass if a public referendum were held today.

“Supporters,” Tully writes, “are so emboldened they even tossed in a ban on civil unions for good measure.”

The move was certainly reckless, but I’m not so sure the proposed amendment’s discriminatory surplus speaks to its supporters’ strength.

I would contend that it signifies quite the opposite.

Moving to ban civil unions alongside same-sex marriages marks the impending demise of state-sanctioned discrimination against lesbians and gays.

Let me explain.

Social conservatives’ argument against same-sex marriage claims that one man and one woman are intrinsic to the definition of marriage.

If the state acknowledges anything else as a marriage, so they claim, the supposed base of society (the male-female reproductive pair) will crumble.

Everyone acknowledges that this argument is not strong. The handful of states and nations that have legalized same-sex marriage suggest that two men or two women enjoying equal civil privileges hasn’t severely limited heterosexuals’ reproductive drives.

Conservatives’ support for a prohibition of civil unions only chips away at the vestiges of their argument’s logical coherence.

If banning same-sex marriage were really motivated by a concern that marriage be defined as one man and one woman, a ban on same-sex marriages is exactly what they would propose.

Since civil unions are not called marriages, they should be of little concern.
Their inclusion in the Indiana Legislature’s amendment reveals the underlying motives of those who want to ban same-sex marriage.

Stopping same-sex marriage is part and parcel of conservatives’ effort to discriminate against gays and lesbians in every way available to them.

Prohibiting non-marriage privileges for same-sex couples evidences this.
Thankfully, public opinion increasingly holds blatant discrimination against gays and lesbians to be distasteful and morally untenable.

That is why conservatives have been forced to mask their homophobic arguments with a supposed desire to protect the social order.

An open call for discrimination against gays and lesbians would resonate with far fewer citizens.

The Legislature’s support for banning civil unions was just such an indiscreet public announcement of its real motives.

Let’s hope the homophobic movement’s exposure of its true aims will lead to its unraveling.

­— wallacen@indiana.edu