To the editor:
After reading Jay Goad’s (Dec. 31) letter regarding his confidence that a majority of Hoosiers appreciate the boldness of leaders of private and governmental entities regarding Indiana HJR6, I had to write to challenge some of his misconceptions and certainly his use of the term vocal minority.
Mr. Goad first needs a lesson in civics so that he understands why the issue was going to be proposed to the voters in the first place. As it currently stands, Indiana already has a state statute banning same-sex marriage.
This vote was for a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage. In order to change the constitution of the state of Indiana, the legislature must vote to propose it to the voters in a general election. Because of his misunderstanding about this, his argument that every decision should be voted on by the voters is a fallacy.
We are a representative democracy and as such we elect legislators to decide issues for us. When it comes to constitutional issues, voters get to decide. It’s that simple. Unfortunately, Mr. Goad doesn’t understand the process and as such, presents much pomp and circumstance about nothing. In fact, this misunderstanding renders every argument he makes null and void. As such, we can’t let the voters decide every issue as Mr. Goad proposes.
Additionally, his use of the term vocal minority is classic. This is the argument made by those who are afraid of the results that would come if things were truly proposed as he suggests. I think there would be a great eye-opening experience for the truly vocal minority if this proposal were allowed to be decided by the voters. It’s the vocal minority that screams discrimination if they aren’t allowed to marry because of their “sexual preference” as Mr. Goad stated.
Could it be that instead of this being a discrimination issue, it is more of a validation issue? In other words, the issue is more about validating a lifestyle and accommodating their feelings than it is about equal rights.
Currently there is no law prohibiting same-sex couples. There is no law that prohibits a same-sex couple from making each other the heirs to their estates or from leaving every asset they possess to their partner.
As it stands, they have almost every right that every other married couple enjoys except for a piece of paper that declares them a couple. Most of the business leaders Mr. Goad lauds have already accommodated the same-sex community with partner benefits so that they can have insurance if they so choose. So in reality, when it all comes down to it, this really isn’t a discrimination issue after all, is it?