I'm not gonna lie...

Proposed change does not belong in the bill of rights
By Thomas Nolan
Publication Date: 02/21/07
Columnist Print View

Some Indiana lawmakers need a little education on constitutional law.

Senate Joint Resolution 7 proposes an amendment to the Indiana State Constitution stating that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman and that neither the constitution nor any other law can be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be given to unmarried couples.

The argument against the constitutionality of this bill as law can be easily made (see Indiana State Constitution, Article 1: Bill of Rights, Sections 1 and 23). However, because this bill proposes an amendment to the state's constitution, it is necessary that a different issue be addressed. This law, right or wrong, does not belong in the constitution.

The purpose of having a constitution is to establish and maintain a system of government for Indiana and define the relationship between this government and its people. Indiana's current constitution does the following: it defines processes for government and describes its three branches; defines voting rights and practices; sets state boundaries; provides the framework for state revenues, state institutions, public education and state militia; includes rules for the state's relationship with banks and corporations and outlines a bill of rights. All of these things are necessary in order to effectively establish and maintain Indiana's democratic government.

So is a definition of marriage something that belongs in the constitution?

Absolutely not.

The constitution as it stands doesn't include any mention of marriage. It does not define either the process of obtaining legal marriage or any of the legal ramifications of marriage.

And it shouldn't. Marriage is primarily a relationship between two people. The constitution does not actually set up laws to govern the lives and practices of Indiana's citizens. What it does is set up the rules and processes for legislation. This is the first problem with the proposal.

The second is that even if marriage is a legal relationship with the state, and therefore falls under the realm of the constitution, the proposed amendment specifies which citizens can achieve this relationship and which can't. The only restriction that is placed on rights in the current constitution is that citizens being held for treason or murder charges will not be allowed the right of bail. This restriction exists undeniably for the protection of the community. There are no other restrictions on rights in the document. In fact, the introductory statement to the bill of rights says that all people are equal, and they all have equal rights. The bill of rights was written to provide protection for the rights of all people. Unless allowing homosexual couples to obtain legal marriage status presents an undeniable danger to individuals in the community, then how could adding this restriction to the bill of rights possibly fit the goals of this statement?

The final argument: Any law that restricts the application of the constitution is completely bogus. The constitution provides a framework for the legislation of Indiana. It's above the law. So how can legislators be allowed to change it so that it doesn't apply in certain cases? After stating that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, the bill states, "this constitution ... may not be construed to require that marriage status or the incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples." Rephrased, that says the Indiana Constitution (and thus the included bill of rights) can't be used to argue that unmarried couples - including homosexuals who have not been allowed to marry - have the right to either be married or achieve a status similar to marriage. The bill effectively says that a gay marriage ban can't be declared unconstitutional, giving lawmakers a way to get around the Bill of Rights. If what the law does is right, then why should legislators need to add a loophole to the Bill of Rights in order to achieve it?

It's alarming that some of Indiana's legislators do not understand that the constitution is above the law and is not a political plaything. And what's most alarming is that the amendment is actually in danger of being passed by the state assembly and ratified in a statewide vote.

If this happens, there is no doubt in my mind that it will eventually be repealed by the population. So Indiana residents, let your representatives know that this law does not belong in the constitution. If it comes down to it, vote against the amendment - if for no other reason than to save future generations some time.

Esther's viewing was yesterday (sunday)
It was good to go. I will miss her...a lot of people will.

After four hours of sleep, I went into work. I stayed
at work for eight hours...which about killed me.
After that, I walked 20 min to class to find out that
it was cancelled (yay!!) so I went back and took
a four hour nap. I definitely needed it.

I just feel kind of bleh right now.
Some people are pissing me off
with the way they are treating me...

I'm irritated with some of my brothers in my frat...
just a bunch of bullshit is going down...

and I still think I'm going to be single for the rest of my life
especially since the state passed the bill the second time
to amend the constitution making same sex marriage illegal.
Now we shall have to see what 2008 will bring...WAR!! haha jk!