On anti-gay marriage amendment HJR6, Purdue’s not so bad

I bled black and gold until I learned Purdue University didn’t have a journalism school.

It doesn’t matter much now that I’ve switched majors, but I’ll stay true to the Hoosiers.

But I read an article that’s making my inner Boilermaker whistle.

Purdue’s University Senate and Student Government have come out in opposition to the proposed Indiana same-sex marriage ban.

Which means they’re just like us. Chew on that for a minute.

By now, most have learned or have at least become annoyed with any mention of House Joint Resolution 6. HJR6 would make it so that only a marriage between one man and one woman can be considered valid in the state of Indiana.

Indiana also would not be allowed to recognize civil unions or similar partnerships, though that portion didn’t specify gender.

The funniest part of the amendment is that it specifically states “one man and one woman,” which I take as ruling out polygamy.

IU opposed this amendment in late October by joining forces with Freedom Indiana. Freedom Indiana is a bipartisan coalition in partnership with national gay-rights organizations.

At the time, Ball State and Purdue refused to join, so IU hit it first and became the first institution of higher education to unite with the coalition.

But key voices within Purdue, with the exception of its president, have finally broken their silence.

Its University Senate, comprised of students, faculty, staff and administrators met and said “no” by a wide margin.

Finally, a senate that can finish actual business.

Notably absent from the consensus was Purdue University President and former Governor Mitch Daniels.

IU and Purdue’s University Senate expressed similar reasons for opposing the amendment.

We both feel the proposed amendment contradicts our respective school values and policies. Both universities seem to pride themselves on their beliefs in equality and respect for others.

The amendment expresses blatant intolerance and discrimination that the universities should refuse to support.

Now, I’m not saying that the refusals stem exclusively from enrollment, but I’m sure enrollment plays a part.

The Indianapolis Star article on Purdue mentions the harm this amendment could do to university recruitment.

Younger generations appear more liberal and open these days, and a school that supports unfair stipulations on something like marriage isn’t likely to get as big a flood of applications in the fall.

It’s important to remember that this amendment wouldn’t just affect same-sex couples.
If you can’t do it for the gays, do it for the polygamists.

Do it for the people getting civil unions, because apparently people actually do that.

Just say no to marital stipulations.

Not letting people marry because of gender is no different than refusing to let people of different races marry. And without interracial relationships there would be no Halle Berry or Beyoncé.

Is that what we want, America? A world with no Beyoncé?

Even if it is just for recruitment, I’m glad that important voices within Purdue have finally taken a stance and have chosen the same side as IU.

Those Boilermakers aren’t so bad after all.

Can’t we all just come together and bake cakes out of rainbows and smiles and be happy?

No? Too far? OK then. I tried.

— lnbanks@indiana.edu
Follow columnist Lexia Banks on Twitter @LexiaBanks.