Indiana Senate Joint Resolution 7: No equal rights?
By Sarah Haefner
Staff Writer
Legislators passed Indiana Senate Joint Resolution 7 on Jan. 29, approving an amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, therefore outlawing gay marriage. The resolution further states that any unmarried couple will not receive the same benefits as a married couple.
If the resolution is approved by a majority of Indiana voters in November’s general election, the amendment will be added. The Indiana State Supreme Court would be the only means of rendering this amendment null once it’s passed.
Whatever view one holds on the rights of homosexuals, this particular resolution hits a hollow note and sends a shiver down the spine of anyone who believes the government should have little, if any, role in the personal affairs of citizens.
We have given the government its power in the exchange for protection of our rights—not so that officials may make livelihood decisions on our behalf.
One of the most prominent arguments proposed by those opposed to marriage rights for homosexuals is the belief that homosexuality is immoral. This belief clearly stems from religious doctrine; a doctrine that not all follow and that no one should be forced to follow. This is the basis of our very government and was one of the most important issues at the birth of our nation.
It is stated in the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” To force an individual to adapt to your beliefs is nothing short of intolerant self-righteousness.
The United States has always prided itself on being the forerunner in human rights and civil liberties. The nation used to be characterized by change and progress. On the issue of gay rights, however, we have been surpassed by almost all European countries.
According to CBS News, civil unions granting gay couples the same rights as married couples have been in existence since 1989 in Denmark. France and Germany have civil union laws as well. Logistically speaking, these laws do not make the entire European continent immoral—the European people understand the importance of acceptance and tolerance.
I am ashamed to think that the legislators we voted into office have used the power we gave them to continue bigotry, regression of liberties and narrow-minded behavior.
I have the overwhelming suspicion that in the future, we, as Indiana citizens, will look back at this point in history and be ashamed of the hate and prejudice we subscribed to if we pass this amendment in November.
The country has a long history of allowing our reason to be destroyed by fear—of change, foreign ideas, outsiders and general unconventionality.
Instead of fearing others, Indiana should be at the forefront in the fight for equality and liberty for all. Why aren’t we voting people into office who hold these ideals?
It is time we send a message to our representatives—Indiana voters believe in a country free of hate.
Idealist that I am, if each individual contributes his or her part to progress and change, each state will follow accordingly, creating a country transformed and invigorated with a new sense of hope and a wealth of liberty and prosperity.
