Looks like a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Indiana won't be on the ballot until 2016. Though I ask traditional conservatives this; what good by this point does it do passing constitutional amendments when they're being knocked down left and right? First in Utah, then my state Oklahoma, then Kentucky in cases of out-of-state marriages and latest case is in Virginia. There's also challenge developing Texas as well.
All these states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and federal judges simply invoke the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. So what good would've passing another amendment in Indiana would've done when that could be struck down just as easily? I think this whole gay marriage debate (in favor or opposed) is a fraud anyway. Why must I have a license from the government to get married period? I find a lack of that particularly on the pro-gay side of aisle.
There's a better alternative than what either side is giving. Right when the amendment Oklahoma was struck down by Judge Kern, State Rep. Mike Turner a Republican from Edmund introduced the Preservation of Marriage Act (POMA). It's a measure that would privatize marriage in Oklahoma and end all government licensing. He makes a very good point both from a Christian's perspective and from a liberty standpoint too.
When I first heard of this measure, I got excited that finally someone has proposed this idea. Getting government out of performing/recognizing marriage is actually no new thing and goes back to the 90s at least. But no one's ever filed in legislation in recent U.S. history proposing it. For now it's being held steady to wait and react at what the 10th circuit says about the marriage amendment, but it holds a realistic chance of passing.
If it does pass and it signed it would be such fascination and pleasure to see the left's reaction. I'd think they'd be overwhelmingly opposed to it since it means government can longer tinker around with human behavior. I also know there's skeptics on the right too. I always say you can civilly disagree with someone else, but I'd ask at least to consider what I'm speaking of. When you pass a same-sex marriage ban, you're only giving fodder to the left and the courts. Privatizing marriage however would mean they'd be cut off from using the fist of government and start all over.
Aside from all that though I don't see any benefit to government marriage. Some have called it a "public good" that must be preserved, but you're talking about the government that can't operate a website correctly (much less 17% of the economy). I think marriage is much better put into the hands of religious institutions and individuals to handle than it is some far bureaucracy. I'll close out with this quote: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Note: I can't comment so email me at [email protected] or my twitter is @jgcountry01. Thanks for listening.