You’re so dismissive of any criticism of IE, but the truth is that they have some serious issues that don’t get addressed. You listen to only one side of the story because you are friends with Mark. You have always taken his side regardless if he’s right or wrong – that makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You really don’t know the whole story and you don’t take the time or effort to find out, but you go about blasting everyone who’s a critic. The criticism exists for a reason. I served on that board for 3 years – I think I have every right and reason to say what I say about IE’s policies, mistakes and failures.

Again, I’d encourage you to find a source other than Mark for your news and info on LGBT issues. You could, as a straight ally, do a lot of good for LGBT equality if you weren’t just cheerleading for IE and dismissing their critics without thought.

Kicking the can down the road has also set us back in moving our agenda forward in any real way. Your history of IE is a little off – they were originally formed exclusively to advocate for a statewide employment, housing and public accommodations non-discrimination law. So far, they haven’t even gotten that bill introduced, let alone enacted.

Up until about 3 years ago, IE’s website promised that bill would have already been introduced in the legislature. Because of this “middle of the road” policy, IE has a hard time advocating for pro-LGBT legislation.

The tactics you describe (pointing out the effect on non-LGBT people, gathering support from the pro-equality businesses, heartfelt testimony) are all great and should be part of any strategy in defeating a marriage amendment…But that doesn’t mean that the overall strategy is sound or will continue to be viable.

You also failed to point out the political realities of putting this amendment on the ballot. Democrat speaker of the House Pat Bauer is a shrewd and brilliant politician. He knows that if this amendment makes it to the ballot, the Democrats will have a bad year statewide.

THAT, more than anything else, is what’s keeping this amendment from seeing light of day. Yes, the tactics of IE give Bauer the cover he needs to stand strong in that position, but don’t fool yourself or your readers into believing that IE is the real reason this amendment has died.

Pat Bauer deserves the lion’s share of the credit and you do him and the movement for LGBT equality a disservice by implying anything different.

Thanks for the response.

Here’s where I see an apparent contradiction–the organization providing health benefits–be it IU or any other institution, corporation, society, etc.–is in a sense declaring the employer a “partner”–and enacting an economic union. Once declaring that the institution can decide to confer benefits of that partnership (I wanted to call it paternalism–but it’s less “loving” than that!) to the family of the partner. This is determining to become a kind of protectorate.

How does the organization benefit from the further legal action of requiring marriage if it can just as easily determine via economic documents the reality of a domestic partnership?

Finally, if it’s willing to offer this status to two individuals who are unmarried why is it not willing to offer it to other similar partnerships? It’s a CHOICE the university to keep this affidavit narrow. HOW does the choice to not extend the benefit to other partners prove beneficial?

I worked at a large science society–notoriously and extremely republican and conservative to its core–their partner recognition was for ALL domestic partners–not just same sex. So that bastion of conservatism is more liberal than a liberal university system.

Are there actions to take to influence a change–is a letter to the editor the best one could do?

When you come to the issue of “legal recognition,” it gets thornier. That’s what civil marriage IS–recognition by the state of your partnership, for the purpose of awarding certain legal benefits. The state does not and cannot sanctify a relationship; that’s left to churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. If Americans understood that “marriage” is an exclusively religious state, and that what we call legal marriage is essentially a civil union, or a recognition by the government of a contractual commitment, many of these issues would go away.

Where do you stand with respect to “Domestic Partner” affidavits–the Indiana University (your system?) offers Domestic Partner status for health care BUT restricts this status to only “same-sex” couples.

How did “marriage” become a requirement for recognition of a life partner. I’ve been in a heterosexual relationship for 3 years (IU requires domestic partners to be in a committed union for 6 months). My partner and I are ambivalent about marriage as an institution but health care almost twists our arm into doing so.

Because IU has a restrictive domestic partner policy (going so far as to require the applicants to pledge that they WOULD get married if only Indiana would allow it) I cannot get health insurance under my partner’s plan.

It is an irony that this policy discriminates against us. We may be able to be married, but we choose not to. Why should this bar us from a legal recognition of our partnership?

thanks for your thoughts!

I agree that gay marriage is the last major civil rights milestone yet to be surpassed and I hope is this case if eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court gets a 5 to 4 decison to overturn Proposition 8 and not a 5-4 decision as in the case decided in Bush v Gore decided wrongfully against Vice President Gore!!

Googling his name, I came across this: http://www.libertybill.net/ – He has a book opposing the Drug War.

Then, I look at Iraq, Afghanistan, perhpas Yemen, and Pakistan, and don’t see a dime’s worth of substantive difference between Bush and Obama. Stylistic difference aplenty, but the policy is essentially the same- war.

War on drugs? Same. Patriot Act? Same. Presidential power? Same. Indefinite detention? Same. Wiretapping US citizens? Same. Corporate bailouts? Same. Printing money to hide the cost of war? Same. Those aren’t small items. They are major policy issues.

Now, when you look at the kind of folks who were protesting the war under Bush (where are they now?), one found every bit as many signs comparing the president to Hitler, and profuse use of swastikas and Hitler moustaches drawn on Bush. Just stepping foot inside DC became offensive to me, seeing so many swastikas (every Washington Times newspaper box had several, for instance). I was at anti-war rallies, and at tea parties, so I have a basis for comparison. My opinion is that the fringes get the ink, but the centrists and compromisers- not the idealogues- of both the Ds and Rs, are bringing us exactly the lamentable sameness I cited above: A desire always to grow the size and scope of government; always an interventionist foreign policy; and always civil rights come a distant second, especially in light of ‘national security’. How about Obama ‘reaching across the aisle’ to pass that military funding? Rah-rah compromise and moderation! These are the ‘grown-ups’ at work!