Chris Smith is the son of State Rep. Milo Smith (R-Columbus), who is chairman of the House Elections Committee which just this past week passed HJR-3 on a 9-3 vote along party lines to the full house for consideration. He's also gay. Chris Smith posted on Indiana Equality's Facebook site his disappointment of his father's support of a constitutional amendment to enshrine discrimination against Indiana's gay and lesbian citizens in the state's constitution.
Hello everyone. I am the gay son of Representative Milo Smith, chairman of the Elections Committee that just passed HJR-3 onto the full House. I'm not here to badmouth my dad. I'm terribly disappointed in his decision and beliefs, but he's not going to change them now if he hasn't after all these years of knowing I am gay. I am here to support you and my friends who remain in Indiana. They are my extended family.Chris currently resides in Culver City, California according to his Facebook profile. His father is tax consultant in Columbus who formerly worked for Cummins Engine, which as a company has spoken out forcefully in opposition to HJR-3. Chris added the following comment on his personal Facebook site about the debate over HJR-3:
As I look at the fight over marriage equality in my home state of Indiana, I'm reminded why I have such a disregard for politics and government. Politics is simply a fight for control in order to rule over others. If you want to tell others how they have to live their lives, then it should come as no surprise when others want to tell you how you have to live yours.
Just curious, how does HJR3 tell "anyone how to live their lives?"
What conduct legal in Indiana, today, would be illegal if HJR3 passes?
A constitution is a contract between the government and the governed describing the terms on which the governed have agreed to allow the government to impose upon their personal liberties.
The Bill of Rights, which is the part of the state constitution this amendment seeks to amend, expressly sets forth the extent of our personal liberties to impose limits on what government can do to restrict them. It touches on free speech rights, religious freedom, the right to bear arms, our rights in criminal proceedings and so on. It specifically provides that no law may be passed that gives a preference to any creed, religious society or mode of worship.
This amendment seeks to limit the rights of people respecting their marital rights. Laws regulating marriage are a proper subject of state legislation as long it is rationally related to a government purpose. This is not an appropriate subject for the bill of rights for our state's constitution because it is based solely on a some people's religious beliefs of what can be recognized by the government as a legal marital union. It restricts personal liberty based on a religious-based view of a marital relationship. By definition, it tells people how to live their lives by rewarding one type of marital or civil union and punishing another type.
"This is not an appropriate subject for the bill of rights for our state's constitution because it is based solely on a some people's religious beliefs of what can be recognized by the government as a legal marital union. It restricts personal liberty based on a religious-based view of a marital relationship."
That's not true. Support is not "solely based on religion." And consider that religion is merely the distilled morality of millenia. People expressed right and wrong in religious terms, because God was the foundation of the moral code. That's all people knew to use as a moral foundation. If people argued moral foundations outside a religious context, there was often big problems, so much great moral work was conducted within sacred halls.
Merely because a position has, for some, a religious anchor does not invalidate it. From Alabama to Indonesia, murder is wrong. From the Roman Empire to the United Federation of Planets, murder will be wrong.
The Muslims and Baptists will anchor their beliefs in religion, while those in Paris, or perhaps aboard the Enterprise, will arrive at the exact same end using secular humanistic arguments. Even if you bounce religion, the ancient moral understanding of generations remains.
So many religious teachings are so easily followed for generations because they sit well with our nature. It doesn't take much theological searching to uncover God's motive in forbidding stealing. It appears as such a basic moral law comes from, and is a gift from, God. Setting aside God, not stealing is a really good idea that allows civilizations to form and grow.
Merely dismissing positions that are proffered by believers is a cheap attempt to evade the frequently sound moral arguments that support the positions, absent a deity.
Have you fully considered the merit of the other side's position? Could you recast the other side's argument in purely secular terms? Honesty is so desperately needed in this most profound of discussions.
After all, by what arrogance do we overturn 40,000 years of human social arrangement in a space of time shorter than the availability of WiFi?
How do you explain the fact that Abraham, Moses, David, Jacob, et al, had multiple wives? Religions have taken varying views on marriage over time. You can go back in time and look at different cultures and different religions and find varying marital relations that were practiced and legally accepted. When the Puritans arrived in the New World, they wanted the government to have no say in regulating marriages other than to serve as a civil registry of marriages performed by the church. If church doctrine had prevailed, you wouldn't be able to get a divorce once you're married. Many churches bitterly opposed the concept of no-fault divorces.
"How do you explain the fact that Abraham, Moses, David, Jacob, et al, had multiple wives? Religions have taken varying views on marriage over time."
Not really "varying."
As best as I can tell, religions have taken two, not contradictory positions on marriage:
1. One man and one woman.
2. One man and more than one woman.
The inescapable constant in all cultures and religions from the dawn of time until the Administration of George W. Bush is that men have married women.
I find nothing in religion or human history that permits:
1. One man and one man.
2. One man and more than one man.
"When the Puritans arrived in the New World, they wanted the government to have no say in regulating marriages other than to serve as a civil registry of marriages performed by the church."
Did the Puritan men try to marry other Puritan men? Would a Puritan man have permitted the colony to enter two men on the civil marriage registry? How does your historical statement prove your position that two men should be able to become married?
" If church doctrine had prevailed, you wouldn't be able to get a divorce once you're married."
Not sure how that's relevant to two men being accepted as married?
"Many churches bitterly opposed the concept of no-fault divorces."
Good. Well they should. Marriage is more than simply two people entering into a formalized dating relationship.
In seeking relevance here, in opposing no-fault divorce, did churches also argue that two men should be able to become married?
Why are bigots always anonymous?
"What conduct legal in Indiana, today, would be illegal if HJR3 passes?"
Well, if received benefits from Eli Lilly for my partner, your Amendment might make that impossible
Definitionally, one cannot be bigoted against homosexuals. Homosexuality is something one chooses to be. One can no more be "bigoted" against homosexuals than one can be "bigoted" against fans of the Miami Dolphins.
One does not choose to be gay. Did you choose to be heterosexual? At what age did you make the choice to be heterosexual?
Also, please look at civilizations other than Western Christian early modern Europe before you blanket decide on social constructs of millenia.
Many people live very happily without religion today and have done so for thousands of years.
"One does not choose to be gay. Did you choose to be heterosexual?"
Of course, your false equivalency is nonsense. One also does not choose to aspirate. Did you choose to aspirate? Did you choose to eat? Did you choose to wear a coat in the cold? Of course, not. Such matters are handled reflexively, and you have no volitional choice in the matter.
Being homosexual is a choice. For some, it's not a choice as overt as selecting Frito's over Dorito's from Marsh, for some, however, it is.
For many, however, homosexuality is a self-destructive lifestyle choice that has more subtle and less obvious origins. Some people turn to drugs; some turn to alcohol; some turn to womanizing; some to homosexuality.
While the seasoned alcoholic has long forgotten the first moment at which his addiction began, there was a voluntary first sip. That first taste made the world feel better, and so the alcoholic returned for the far more destructive second sip and has been there, ever since. So it goes with all addictions and escapes. If you dig deeply enough, you'll find a voluntary act.
Moreover, the existence of bisexuals invalidates almost all DNA-encoded arguments.
I don't begrudge anyone the right to be an alcoholic, a womanizer, and addict or a homosexual. Do as you will, but don't compel me to accept, accommodate, subsidize or recognize your choices.
Post a Comment