Thanks to state Reps. P. Eric Turner, R-Marion, and Dave Cheatham, D-North Vernon, Hoosiers can once again argue about whether
or not we should have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The two recently announced at a press conference they
are co-sponsoring the “Defense of Marriage” amendment this session, which has yet to be filed. Sen. Marlin Stutzman, R-Howe,
plans on filing the amendment in the Senate.
This topic just infuriates me; with all the other problems in the world, a select group of very vocal people decide that constitutionally banning gay marriage in Indiana is what we should be focused on. Forget our foundering economy, skyrocketing unemployment rates, increased taxes, or failing educational system. No, what threatens Indiana residents day in and day out is that their homosexual neighbor may have the legal right to marry their partner!
I’ll forgo getting into all the religious aspects of this bill in this post and instead focus on something that I think Rep. Turner and others should focus on if they really want to “defend” the sanctity of marriage.
They believe two people of the same sex shouldn’t marry because it destroys traditional family values. You know what, so do abusive husbands who beat their wives and manipulate them. Children shouldn’t be exposed to that kind of household.
When two heterosexual people with children divorce, that breaks up the “traditional” family by their definition. People divorce for all types of reasons, some because of a cheating spouse or abusive marriage, some because it’s the easy way out. If Rep. Turner and others are so serious about defending the family, why don’t they make more of an effort to emphasize pre-marital and marital counseling and working through problems instead of divorce when it’s possible?
Spend more time and resources combating teen pregnancy. Many children grow up in households with single mothers or grandparents instead of the “traditional” two-parent household. Also work on getting fathers more involved in their children’s lives, in or outside of a marriage.
If a church doesn’t want to marry a gay couple, that’s fine. It’s that church’s right as a private institution to decide who it marries. The state, on the other hand, shouldn’t be allowed to dictate that two consenting adults can’t have a marriage at the courthouse or other non-religious location.
This topic just infuriates me; with all the other problems in the world, a select group of very vocal people decide that constitutionally banning gay marriage in Indiana is what we should be focused on. Forget our foundering economy, skyrocketing unemployment rates, increased taxes, or failing educational system. No, what threatens Indiana residents day in and day out is that their homosexual neighbor may have the legal right to marry their partner!
I’ll forgo getting into all the religious aspects of this bill in this post and instead focus on something that I think Rep. Turner and others should focus on if they really want to “defend” the sanctity of marriage.
They believe two people of the same sex shouldn’t marry because it destroys traditional family values. You know what, so do abusive husbands who beat their wives and manipulate them. Children shouldn’t be exposed to that kind of household.
When two heterosexual people with children divorce, that breaks up the “traditional” family by their definition. People divorce for all types of reasons, some because of a cheating spouse or abusive marriage, some because it’s the easy way out. If Rep. Turner and others are so serious about defending the family, why don’t they make more of an effort to emphasize pre-marital and marital counseling and working through problems instead of divorce when it’s possible?
Spend more time and resources combating teen pregnancy. Many children grow up in households with single mothers or grandparents instead of the “traditional” two-parent household. Also work on getting fathers more involved in their children’s lives, in or outside of a marriage.
If a church doesn’t want to marry a gay couple, that’s fine. It’s that church’s right as a private institution to decide who it marries. The state, on the other hand, shouldn’t be allowed to dictate that two consenting adults can’t have a marriage at the courthouse or other non-religious location.
Back to Top
Conversations
2 Comments
Add Comment
By allowing two people to get married, how does this affect the traditional family? If it was acceptable, it would be another thing that these Nay Sayers have to learn and figure out to teach their children.
I guess it comes down to, how do you teach the children the purpose of getting together for pro-creation. With the current technology, this is only going to get harder as time goes on since we are able to create life (and grow this life in either man or woman or even test tube) without even having a strait couple bumping uglies so to speak. So the idea of marrage for the children is loosing ground every day.
When the arguement comes down to: Because the bible says so or It is evil in God\'s Eys or any arguement with bible, God, heaven or even hell, I find those arguements to be lacking in substence. By all means, I do follow the christian religion, BUT I find the bible arguements are severely lacking in their own areas. And the arguements that are not Religious can have counter-arguement with Science.
Progressives really must work harder and educate the public on this sort of stuff.
And I know, everyone hates to do it, but progressives in this state might have to put gay marriage on hold and work on civil-unions and working rights. Also, as a state that is slowly progressing we cannot have this attitude, it is bad for business.
The traditional family never exsisted. I think a lot of government officials and social conservatives have this warm fuzzy feeling of something that rarely(if ever) exsisted.
The \'traditional family\' ended when a couple was given the right to divorce.
Marriage itself is not somehow sacred to many people. Though it is a sacred alliance to many, it does not hold the same to a majority of people who make up for this massive divorce rate.
Why don\'t they work to limit divorces? Or to end drive-thru wedding chapels?
Fear is what I think it is.
Anytime we go through an era of social progression there is, and always will be a backlash, however the slow trends are against them.
These moves are on the wrong side of history.
However, progressives must fight for equal rights.