IBJOpinion

Hicks: Let's debate gay marriage in our homes

Mike Hicks
November 23, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

I have written that the marriage amendment is a poor use of our legislators’ time, but I believe we should have an honest discussion about the matter. Here is what I will say to my kids:

I will tell them that constitutions are mighty things that bind us together in ways that should not be subject to fashion. We Hoosiers mustn’t become too cavalier in amending ours; the major public-opinion shift on gay marriage ought to be sufficient to give us pause. I will tell my kids that in this matter we must be ready to be judged right by future generations.

I will explain to my kids (ages 9, 13 and 14) how lucky they are to be living in an intact family. They will understand this, for they know how hard it is for friends with single parents. I will explain to them that folks who wish to ban gay marriage also know and understand how family problems bedevil the nation.

I will explain to my kids that a full third of our national budget goes to fixing the ills of broken families, and that those who seek to improve marriage are mostly filled with worry, not hate. Still, I shall remind them that hatred is a sin.

I will also explain to my kids that some few who oppose the amendment will accuse those who wish to save traditional families of bigotry and ignorance. Some few will suppose this is a good argument, and that by labeling supporters as hayseeds they can win.

My kids will smile at this; after all, their name is Hicks and all were born in Appalachia. They know well those slurs don’t stick.

I will explain that there are far better arguments against the amendment than personal attacks, and among them is the likelihood that it will keep out some businesses we would otherwise wish to locate in Indiana.

I will also tell my kids that good government ought not be telling families how to organize themselves. Government has not that competence, and adults should be free to arrange their households as they wish.

Finally, I will admit that I am in deep water with theology, but a favorite children’s author of mine, that old soldier and professor Clive S. Lewis, said it best: “There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the state … the other governed by the church.”

So, let us all have this talk with our kids tonight, and ask the Legislature to focus on more pressing matters.•

__________

Hicks director the Center for Business and Economic Research and a professor of economics at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • History of Government Marriage
    Mike, why not first explain to them why government is in marriage in the first place? Or why we, as free people, are not allowed to enter into a contractual relationship with another consenting adult without the government's 'permission'. Marriage is a religious affair that the government took over to discriminate against mixed marriages. In a sense, it was the "State" overstepping its boundaries into the "Church". The right approach would be to remove the government from marriage altogether. It's none of their business and we should return to being 'free' to enter into a contract with whomever we would like as long as they are also a consenting adult.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT