Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Indiana still pushing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage

Want to know why I didn't apply to any graduate schools in the Midwest? Here's reason #1264:
A Republican-controlled Senate committee voted 6-4 to approve a proposal that could eventually lead to a constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions in Indiana. Even if the proposal clears the full GOP-led Senate, it will likely go nowhere in the Democrat-controlled House.

Democratic House Speaker Patrick Bauer of South Bend has repeatedly said that amending the state's constitution isn't necessary because Indiana law already prohibits same-sex marriage. The Senate has voted several times since 2005 to pass a proposed amendment banning gay marriage, but the proposals have not cleared the House.
Oh, what a great reason to argue against a constitutional ban on gay marriage! We already have a law! You know, not because it removes basic rights from a significant group of people and is morally reprehensible. Thank you, Indiana.

The kicker is that Indiana cares so much about hating on the gays that it's repeatedly wasted its time on this stupid law since 2005. Don't we have better things to be figuring out? Maybe, I dunno, the horrible budget that's resulted in tons of funding being cut from education across the state? Nope, an education would probably just make people more accepting of others who are different from them - therefor we gotta focus on banning gay marriage!

You know why Indiana suffers from such a brain drain? Because educated people like myself run the fuck away and never come back.

But since some people will be stuck in Indiana in the future, if you care about marriage equality, go here to tell your Senator to vote NO on SJR-13. Or better up, look up your Indiana Senator here and give them a call.

24 comments:

  1. Don’t worry; the tides are turning in favor of equality and acceptance … slowly …

    … slowly …



    … so fucking slowly …

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only in some parts of the world. Joé and I could go get gay marriages right now if we wanted to (but not together, sorry Joé).

    The Democratic representative makes a decent point. The law already discriminates, why do the Republicans want to entrench it in the Constitution? So they can hate more, because hating gays is good with their political base. It's sad that hate is a good way to get votes, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. That’s – it’s okay …

    *throws wedding ring away, goes to bedroom to sob*

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's an election year. The Republicans have to do something to suck up to their base.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm so amused by the Repub and Christian Fundie cry of "protect traditional marriage!" Oh! You want to protect *traditional* marriage? Okay, then. First things first, that silly "love" thing needs to go. Everyone knows that marriage is simply a mutually beneficial contract between two families devoid of affection or intimacy. Now, if you want to go back even further, then your husband might actually sleep with you for a reason other than producing an heir, but maybe not. He does have those dozens of other wives in the harem to attend to, y'know.

    ReplyDelete
  6. By the way... You said you applied to Stanford, which is in California, which has *already* passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...and never come back."

    You mean like me? I love Lafayette, but it was a transitional place for me.

    As for the current leadership of Indiana, I'm still pissed that we leased (read: sold) our toll road and switched to DST.

    I don't have to deal with it anymore per se, but it's still no less infuriating.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Veritas: PolSci101 talks about people satisfying economic needs, but I think that modern politics (here in Europe as well) is far more about satisfying emotional needs so that we don't notice our rulers satisfying their (infinite) economic needs. It's all reality show: form alliances to vote other people off the island or whatever......

    ReplyDelete
  9. <bitterness and angst>As a once-married guy, I think you miss the point that while the bastards may be doing it in a spririt of viciousness, I can assure you from personal experience that their unintended consequence is a kindness why should gays have to suffer like heteros---remember Dr. Johnson on re-marriage "the triumph of hope over experience"</bitterness and angst> of course your mileage may vary :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think Roy Zimmerman more or less said all that needs to be said on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM

    ReplyDelete
  11. Agrees with Adam; Yup, not coming back.

    Moose
    Purdue 1986, currently in Perth, Western Australia

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ah politics. Poor Dem Bauer. I bet he's not a bad guy. He's probably just doing his best to fool the Republicans into thinking the Indiana law is sufficient, because it's easier to change state legislation if the state constitution doesn't specifically address the issue. Heck, Bauer is probably going to introduce new pro-gay marriage next term.

    *sob - I DO believe in fairies! I DO believe in fairies!*

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have mixed feelings about the "leave and don't go back" philosophy (although I don't live in Indiana anymore and have no plans to go back). On the one hand I feel like those of us who support marriage equality are never going to win in these places so there's no point in sticking around. On the other hand I worry that leaving those places just turns them into concentrated evil.

    What irks me most, though, is the argument that this is how democracy is supposed to work. First, I think it's been demonstrated over and over that the rights of people--especially minorities--should not be subject to a majority vote. Second, I live in Tennessee which added similar language to its constitution a few years back. Sure, it was voted in by a majority of the state, but the capitol--in Davidson county, one of the most populous counties in the state--it was rejected. If this is "how democracy works", why is it right for the rest of the state to dictate whether, say, one county to allow same-sex marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "look up your Indiana Senator here and give them a call."
    Preach, sister, preach.
    Do NOT send email. (They toss those in the Recycle Bin/Trash.) Calling is good, but writing a dead-tree-edition letter is the best.
    Make it short, concise, and reiterate your main point (or two) in the last paragraph.
    I used to teach a class in writing effective letters to authorities and newspapers, and nothing gets their attention quite like a well-written missive.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for the posting Jen. I left Indiana for graduate school and never ever thought I would come back. Well, I'm back, and there are some times I don't regret returning. This is not one of those times.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have never heard anyone give a coherent reason why they would be hurt by marriage equality. That said, Jen, I would like to commend you for writing "different from" instead of the increasingly popular, but wrong, "different than." One post strikes a blow for both equality and language usage.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So you're running away and leaving the hard work to someone else. Yeah, that'll work. And telling the poor, simple souls you're leaving behind what to do in your absence was a nice touch.

    You've applied to Stanford (in Prop 8 land); how about UIowa? Any of the 10,000 schools in Massachusetts? I call shenanigans on reason # 1264. You want to get out of Indiana - that's OK, it's called youth - but this attempt to make it a noble mission failed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's called a joke, mingfrommongo. I didn't realize the internet was such serious business.

    ReplyDelete
  19. About time you realized the Serious nature of the Internet, Jen.

    They almost had you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bahahaha, oh people who take the internet seriously.

    And now, a picture of a bunny with a rabbit on its head.

    ReplyDelete
  21. On a more serious note, I challenge you to list all 1263 reasons that come before it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pennsylvania had a similar situation recently and, a Brett pointed out, California has a constititional ban. Florida is a big old bag of nasty in terms of LGBT rights as well. The issues is not confined to the midwest.

    ReplyDelete
  23. In all fairness, I came TO Indiana for graduate school. Surprisingly enough, I decided on here over two other schools in California because this is one of the few places left that has any money to offer.

    Trust me, California isn't a land of sunshine anymore, especially not in academia. When you're living on fellowship funds and T.A. stipends, the cost of living here starts to look pretty damn good.

    Just know that you may be surprised where you end up; that's life. There are going to be idiots wherever you go - and despite people's ideas regarding cosmopolitanism, the number rises exponentially in densely populated areas. You're still young; there'll be plenty of time later to get out of the Midwest.

    Home is where you make it and what you make of it.

    ReplyDelete