Indianapolis blog Advance Indiana manages to equate the banning of same-sex marriage both with the Klan's early stranglehold on Indiana politics and the Nazis ugly march through the middle of the 20th century. It reserves its special scorn for David Long:
The Senate's newly-elected President Pro Tempore David Long (R-Fort Wayne), an attorney, cast his lot with political expediency and voted in favor of it as did all of his Republican colleagues. Only 10 lonely Democratic Senators braved a vote in defense of liberty. It is a legacy which will forever stain Long's tenure in the Indiana Senate. Did he compromise fundamental rights of some Hoosiers months earlier to win a coveted leadership position?
As one commenter noted, this is rhetoric not exactly designed to win over moderates who might be sitting on the fence. Keeping the definition of something the same as it has been for all of human history is like the Klan? Keeping one thing from gays is like the Nazis?
But that's one viewpoint, forcefully presented. And Kenn Gividen has an interesting libertarian take:
It's not a matter of gay rights.
It's a question of excessive government intrusion. And it's wrong.
Marriage licensing has become ingrained in our culture and our minds. We are conditioned to believe that unlicensed marriages are tantamount to living in sin.
Where did we get this idea?
It never occurred to our nation's Christian founders to secure state marriage licenses. Rather, betrothal occurred when a man and woman entered into a legally binding oral contract. Typically this was in the presence of witnesses, at a formal ceremony and took the form of oaths, including, “until death do us part.”
The oral contract was binding in most cases. But there were exceptions. Many states forbade inter-racial marriages. Such marriages could only transpire with government permission — or license. It eventually became the norm in the early 20th century when all states agreed to recognize each others' licenses.
I still think what the state does or does not do about replacing the law against same-sex marriage with a constitutional amendment is irrelevant. Because of the full-faith-and-credit clause alluded to by Gividen, this is headed for the Supreme Court.
My question about gay marriage: If we remove the traditional definition of one man and one woman, does that open the door for marriage to be defined as just about anything? Where do we draw the line, and if we don't know where to draw it, is that important to our society or not? I have heard it argued that this is a red herring -- we draw the line at two consenting adults who may or may not be of the same sex. But don't bisexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals and homosexuals? Unless we ask them to deny half of their sexuality, that would seem to require a marriage of three people. Wouldn't it?