Monday, January 29, 2007

More Rhetoric From Christian Right on SJR-7

The AFA's Indiana leader, Micah Clark, is adding to the absurd arguments his national leader, Don Wildmon, advanced last week in an effort to win approval for SJR-7, a proposed contitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages and prohibit the recognition of any legal incidents of marriage for unmarried couples or groups. Clark falsely advises his followers that SJR-7 "does not take away anyone's rights." Instead, he says its only purpose is to prevent courts from forcing legal recognition of "same-sex marriages, polygamy and other living arrangement." Clark writes:

Indiana is halfway through our amendment process, which if adopted by the voters would prevent a judge from forcing the legislature to create civil unions, (homosexual marriages by another name) and it prevents a judge from completely overturning our marriage laws to force legal recognition and endorsement of same-sex marriages, polygamy and other living arrangements.

It is important to understand SJR 7 does not take away anyone’s rights. It merely preserves Indiana law as it currently exists and as it has for centuries. SJR 7 recognizes that marriage, the bringing together of the two sexes, is an institution that is important to a strong society and to future generations. It understands that mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, are neither interchangeable, nor unimportant.
While it is true that SJR-7 doesn't change the status quo with respect to Indiana recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman pursuant to Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted more than a decade ago, the second paragraph does take away rights. Current law permits governmental bodies and public education institutions to offer domestic partner benefits to unwed, same-sex couples and some do, such as IU and Purdue. Further, the Indiana legislature would be free to provide unwed, same-sex couples inheritance rights, rights concerning health care decisions, or even to allow recognition of a civil union. SJR-7 removes an entire realm of legislative authority and would effectively strike down any domestic partner benefits offered by an existing governmental body or public education institution.

The reach of the second paragraph of SJR-7 is a mean-spirited attempt to extend the discriminatory effect of the amendment. It reads, "This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." If enacted, the amendment will represent the first time in the history of the state that our state constitution has been amended to take away rights from any of our state's citizens. It has been related to me that lobbyists for Purdue and IU have been telling legislators that SJR-7 will not affect their domestic partner benefits. That is absolutely false, and employees of our state universities should be bombarding their paid lobbyists with phone calls, letters and e-mails demanding they stop this disinformation campaign. These lobbyists have apparently been co-opted by the state's extremist Christian right organizations who are advocating SJR-7's passage.

SJR-7 is scheduled to receive its first hearing this year in the Senate Judiciary Committee this Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. in the Senate chambers at the State House.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Genesis 19 recalls that God destroyed Sodom for the abominable sin.

Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.

29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

Anonymous said...

Marriage is an institution created and blessed by God. Do not try to destroy what God has blessed.

Advance Indiana said...

Save your preaching for the sponsor of SJR-7--Sen. Brandt Hershman. It's funny that the people who like to take Bible verses out of context to suit their own ends are the first to disobey them.

Wilson46201 said...

Twould be interesting to see if the 2 ChristoFascists commenting here anonymously use the same IP addresses of some of your faithful and frequent GOP self-appointed spokespeople...

Bil Browning said...

I get those occasionally too, Gary. At least they could quote the interesting parts of Genesis 19. Just a clip from right before and right after the quote from Anon. Cuz we want to base our society on the life and times of Lot. He whose wife died by turning into salt so he he got drunk and slept with his daughters. Oh, those family values types...

Gen 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.
---
Gen 19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father [is] old, and [there is] not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, [and] lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Anonymous said...

Bil hit a home run.

Take copies of that with you to the Senate hearing, Bil.

You're gonna need it, I'm afraid.

Jay said...

Anyone who watches the Super Bowl is burning, too, since you know you can't handle any pork products. Also, if your Super Bowl host serves shrimp, you'd better remind them that they are going to hell, as well.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Strange how these so-called Christians always forget Christ. I guess the verses on love and compassion aren't any fun.
Too bad they don't realize they sound exactly like terrorists in the Middle East.

Lori said...

That is so true Jay. The pick and choose from the bible to support their bigoted agenda.

Dave Wene said...

Anon at 10:21
I would like to make 3 points:
1. The Bible refers to this event a few times and each time it does not say Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality but for not taking care of the poor. (Ignoring the poor is wrong.)

2. In Judges a similar event takes place only a concubine is sent out and is raped until death. All kinds of destruction then results. Is the sin in this case heterosexuality? (Rape is wrong no matter the gender of the people involved.)

3. Having read accounts of racial lynchings, those accounts seem very similiar to the reading in Genesis 19 not sexual lust. (Mob rule is wrong no matter how it is done.)

To Anonymous at 10:22
I beleive that God does bless people when they make and keep commitments to each other but I would remind you that humans have changed the definition and expectation of marriage many times. And to be honest to the historical context of the Bible, marriage was the transfer of property--one man's daughter being transferred to another man.

Dan Funk said...

Our anonymous writer is unaware that the majority of religious scholars today do not believe that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality or of two people of the same sex living in a loving, committed relationship. If the same logic used to condemn homosexuality is applied to the story of the city of Gibeah and the Benjaminites (Judges 19 and 20), then heterosexuality would also have to be condemned.

Stop using Biblical teachings to justify discrimination and your bigotry!

Dan Funk
Executive Director
Interfaith Coalition on Nondiscrimination

Matt said...

Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but in a LEGAL sense, doesn't the word "construed" simply mean "interpreted" (as in interpreted by a judicial body)?

Not that it matters much though- the passage of this is as inevitable as the sun rising :(