Kim and Todd Saxton: Go for the gold! But maybe not every time.
Q&A: What you need to know about the CDC’s new mask guidance
Carmel distiller turns hand sanitizer pivot into a community fundraising platform
Lebanon considering creating $13.7M in trails, green space for business park
Local senior-living complex more than doubles assisted-living units in $5M expansion
While I’m worried about Indiana’s arts future should it pass, I don’t have a whole lot new to add to the argument against the definition of marriage amendment.
Others have noted, historically, that trying to tell same-sex couples that they can’t marry is the equivalent of telling interracial couples that they can’t marry. And we know how those proponents now look through the lens of history.
Others have noted, wisely, that formally defining marriage as only possible between one man and one woman will put Indiana at an economical disadvantage to more forward-thinking states. Any company considering moving here will have to weigh this bigotry into its decision making.
Others have noted, smartly, that such an amendment would encourage even more of a brain drain on the state as young people seek meaningful work in a more welcoming atmosphere elsewhere.
Others have noted, Biblically, that if you believe the scriptures should be the rulebook for marriage then you also should be arguing in favor of concubines, forced marriages of slaves by slave owners, submission by prisoners of war, and the marriage of rapists to their victims.
Others have noted, sarcastically, that if you are against gay marriage, don’t get gay married.
Nobody has made the case, effectively, that gay marriage poses any threat whatsoever to opposite-sex marriage. And so what if it did? Computer games and strip clubs pose threats to traditional marriage but we don't ban them. Instead, we encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions. Ain't that America?
Others have noted, clearly, that the amendment, if passed, is likely to be turned over by the Supreme Court.
All I can add, I suppose, is that the fact that Indiana is even considering such an amendment hurts. It hurts my love for this state. It hurts my respect for its government.
It makes me wonder if I would have considered moving here 18 years ago if Indiana were so publicly swimming against the tide of the positive evolution of human rights.
And it makes me concerned about the future of the arts in the state given the strength and importance of gay artists and administrators and their supporters in creating a vibrant A&E culture here. I cannot imagine the state without them…but I’d completely understand if they left should this amendment pass.