Mewsings from Lowecat (aka Indianacat)

My rants, ravings, and overall 'mewsings' on life, the universe, and everything.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Why Does This Need to Be in the State Constitution?

My name is Lowecat and I'm straight, conservative in some areas and liberal in others, which is why I call myself conserbial (or wishy - washy, take your pick).

No, I'm not makin' fun of any of the 12 step programs.  I'm just puttin' this out there as a fact. 

And I'm a little confused as to why the state of Indiana feels it is necessary to put an amendment in our constitution that defines marriage as a union between man and woman only. 

Yes, I'm aware that there is a growin' hue and cry out there to allow for 'gay marriage'.  And I support the reason behind recoginition of such.  My understandin' is that gay marriage provisions will allow same sex couples to have the same protections and rights under the law as traditional married couples have. 

Those rights include right to make health decisions, to be present when their loved one is sick and hospitalized, to make financial decisions, to have the right to be covered as a dependent on health insurance/taxes/etc.  To be a beneficiary.  To adopt children (and frankly, one Hell of a lot of same sex unions are more stable than many traiditional ones!). 

I'm not against that at all.  And I don't think it's necessary to have an amendment in the state constitution to bar it. 

Yet, the Indiana legislature is giving a lot of time and attention to this matter, which is known as HJR 3.  It originally banned civil unions was taken out of the amendment, but there are some out there who want it added back in.

Here's the link which will explain it better than I can:

As a traditional married person who has a belief in a high power, I am NOT offended nor scared of the idea of same sex unions.  I DO still agree that church ministers, including ordained United Methodist ministers, should not officiate religious unions of people of the same sex.  That's how I was raised by my Daddy, a United Methodist minister. 

Again, let me reiterate that I am NOT threatened by the idea of same sex civil unions.  If they want to have a ceremony that unites them in a married state, that's fine by me.  I just am not comfortable with the religious element of it.  That's just me.

And I don't feel it is necessary for the state of Indiana - or any other state for that matter - to put a protection for traditional marriage into law.   If this measure gets approved by the two legislative branches here, it is apparently goin' to go to the voters for approval.  My plan is to vote against it. 

Frankly, it's my opinion that there are more important things that the Indiana Legislature - or any other law making body - should be lookin' at than bannin' same sex unions.  What the Hell are we livin' in, for cripe's sake, the Dark Ages?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home