Sheila Kennedy

As most readers of this column know, I also write regularly for the Indianapolis Star, the largest daily paper in Indiana. My Star columns are usually a bit less…edgy…than my contributions to the Word, and range more broadly across the public policy landscape. While I do write about gay issues on occasion, gay rights is not a central focus.

 

Recently, however, I devoted a column to the discussion of SJ 7, Indiana’s constitutional amendment to “defend marriage.” Like amendments passed in many other states, SJ 7’s language doesn’t stop at declaring that only marriages between a male and female are valid. It adds Part B, which forbids any court from interpreting any law in any way that might confer unnamed “incidents of marriage” on unmarried couples.

 

Even those who support banning same-sex marriage have expressed concerns that Part B will prevent municipalities, state Universities and private employers from offering health insurance and other benefits to the partners of their unmarried employees, gay or straight.

These concerns have been met with assurances from Brant Hershman, the sponsor of SJ 7, that Part B has no such intent, and will have no such effect.

 

I pointed out that courts in other states, faced with similar language, have held otherwise. In the most recent ruling, just a couple of months ago, a Michigan court stated "The marriage amendment’s plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose." The Court dismissed all the Hershman-like statements by Michigan legislators that the language absolutely didn’t mean what it obviously said as political posturing and instead gave effect to the law’s “plain language.” (Darn those activist judges!)

 

I also noted that the sincerity of supporters on this matter might be evaluated by logging on to the web site of the Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing organization promoting same-sex marriage bans. The ADF—like our local proponents—had adamantly denied that Part B-type language would interfere with the rights of public and private employers to extend benefits to their employees’ partners. According to the ADF web site, “Preying on these and similar fears, advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ argue that proposed state marriage amendments will undermine the ability of government and even private entities to grant benefits to unmarried people. This false argument is being used to confuse many people…”

 

And what did that same organization have to say about the Michigan ruling? Under the heading “Michigan Court Does the Right Thing,” the web site self-righteously reported “The benefits plans violated the Michigan marriage amendment, the Court of Appeals rightly reasoned, because the government plans at issue extended health insurance benefits to the same-sex partner of an employee…Whether the benefit is health insurance or season tickets to the U. of Michigan men’s’ water polo team,  governmental units in Michigan may not condition receipt of the benefit on being in a relationship that tracks with the state statutory requirements for marriage.”  

 

In my Star column, I simply pointed out the obvious: proponents of this ban know same-sex marriage is already illegal in Indiana, and they also know that Indiana courts have already upheld the current law. There would be no reason to pass SJ 7 except to void those few benefits that gay couples now enjoy.

 

It was after that column ran that things really got interesting.

 

I’m used to getting a few nasty emails, and seeing some negative letters to the editor, but the attack this time was several magnitudes greater. That led me to conclude I’d hit a nerve, so I did a bit more digging around. And guess what I discovered?

 

Brant Hershman, the sponsor of SJ 7—the guy who has called critics of Part B “liars,” the guy who says he has nothing against gay people, the guy who says Part B absolutely wouldn’t do what it says it will do, the (divorced) guy who is just “defending the sanctity of marriage” has a very illuminating legislative history! For example, in 2003, right after Purdue University  began offering same-sex partner benefits, he sponsored the following bill

 

SECTION 42. IC 5-10-8-1.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003]: Sec. 1.5. (a) A state educational institution (as defined in IC 20-12-0.5-1 ) that provides group coverage for health care services for the state educational institution’s employees shall provide coverage for only the:
        (1) employee;
        (2) individual to whom the employee is married under IC 31-11-1-1 ; and
        (3) employee’s dependent:
            (A) child; and
            (B) stepchild;
under the employee’s coverage.
    (b) A state educational institution that provides coverage for health care services for an individual other than the individuals described in subsection (a) is not eligible for public funding related to the group coverage.”.

 

In other words, “Purdue, give those gays benefits and bye-bye state funding.” Pretty clear.

That bill didn’t pass, but it sure sheds light on the ferocious reaction to my column!  I had—mostly inadvertently—hit them  where they were least truthful, and therefore most vulnerable.

 

Comments

It isn’t just the hatefulness. It’s the hypocrisy.

 

By now, Indiana citizens have heard all of the justifications for SJ 7, the Indiana constitutional amendment to “defend marriage” against the assault of all those gay terrorists who just want to participate in it. And we’ve heard all of the pious assurances that the language in “part B,”(forbidding any court from interpreting any law in any way that might confer the “incidents of marriage” on unmarried couples) isn’t meant to deprive gays of health benefits or hospital visitation rights. It’s just an effort to “clarify” that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

 

Really?

 

Then why have courts in other states, when construing similar language, all held otherwise? In the most recent ruling, just this month, a Michigan court stated "The marriage amendment’s plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose."

 

Those who were challenging that interpretation of the Michigan amendment pointed to all the statements by Michigan legislators that the language absolutely didn’t mean what it obviously said, but the Court dismissed that as political posturing and instead gave effect to the “plain language” of the amendment. Darn those activist judges!

 

If anyone harbors a lingering doubt about the real motives of the legislators who support SJ 7 and similar measures, I suggest they log on to the web sites of the right-wing organizations supporting them. One such organization, the Alliance Defense Fund, has absolutely denied suggestions that Part B-type language in these amendments would interfere with the rights of universities and private employers to extend benefits to their employees’ partners. According to the ADF web site, “Preying on these and similar fears, advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ argue that proposed state marriage amendments will undermine the ability of government and even private entities to grant benefits to unmarried people. This false argument is being used to confuse many people…”

 

And what did that same organization have to say about the Michigan ruling? Under the heading “Michigan Court Does the Right Thing,” they wrote “The benefits plans violated the Michigan marriage amendment, the Court of Appeals rightly reasoned, because the government plans at issue extended health insurance benefits to the same-sex partner of an employee…Whether the benefit is health insurance or season tickets to the U. of Michigan men’s’ water polo team,  governmental units in Michigan may not condition receipt of the benefit on being in a relationship that tracks with the state statutory requirements for marriage.”  

 

Let’s be clear about this: the people pushing for SJ 7 want to make life as difficult as possible for Indiana’s gay citizens. They know same-sex marriage is already illegal in Indiana, and that Indiana courts have upheld the current law. There is no reason to pass this amendment except to void those few benefits that gay couples now enjoy.

 

They may get SJ 7 passed, but no one who believes in equal rights should let them get away with pretending that they don’t mean what they say.  

Comments

Boy oh boy—we’ve barely gotten beyond the 2006 midterms, and the 2008 mud is already flying.

 

Last month, Fox News reported, with a straight face, a charge that had been floating around the right-wing internet the previous few days: Barack Obama is really a Muslim, and possibly a Muslim with terrorist sympathies! He was educated in a fundamentalist Muslim school when he lived in Indonesia!

 

Never mind that it was Obama himself who wrote in his first book about his attendance at that particular school for two years while he was a young child living in Indonesia, his stepfather’s place of birth. Never mind that anyone visiting the school—as real reporters working for CNN subsequently did—found it to be a perfectly ordinary, secular public school, attended by children from a wide variety of religious backgrounds. Never mind that Obama has been a member of a United Church of Christ congregation in Chicago since 1988—clearly, that was just part of his sly dis-information campaign! Remember—he’s black, and his name sounds foreign! What more evidence do you need?

 

Of course, it isn’t only Muslims, African-Americans, gay citizens and assorted others whose less-than-wildly-popular views are met with innuendo, conspiracy theories and blatent bigotry. As many readers of this column know, I write a twice-monthly column for the Indianapolis Star, and evidently I’m not the most popular girl on the block. (Okay, so I haven’t been a girl since the early Ice Age—cut me some slack here, I’m making a point.) The other day, the Star forwarded (as is their practice) a letter addressed to me care of the paper. The letter read, in its entirety, as follows:

 

You’re not half as bright as you assume. Why don’t you go back to the land of your ancestors and live with the progeny?

 

Lest my lack of “brightness” cause me to miss the point, the writer closed with a Star of David. Marginally preferable to “shut up you dirty Jew”—but only marginally.

 

The bigotry, of course, is unfortunate. But it’s the refusal to engage the argument at hand that is most dangerous.

 

Is Obama wrong about health care, the war in Iraq, his description of the political process—anything concrete? If so, why? What did I say in my column that my correspondent disagreed with? What was the reason for that disagreement? Did I get a fact wrong? If so, which one—and where’s the evidence that it was wrong? Should gay people be prevented from marrying, and gaining access to the 1008+ benefits available to married citizens? Why? If gay unions pose a threat to heterosexual marriages, what is the nature of that threat?

Name-calling as “public discussion” doesn’t illuminate anything. It doesn’t allow us to hammer out our differences. It just makes people angry, and deepens American divisions.

 

When I come across one of these examples, I can’t help remembering an old routine of the Smothers Brothers (a comedy duo that was famous way before most of you reading this were born). One of the brothers (Tommy) would make an outrageous remark (the moon is made of green cheese, or something comparable), and the other brother (Dick) would patiently and reasonably explain why that was semi-insane. Tommy—clearly recognizing the force of Dick’s argument, and having nothing rational with which to counter it—would just get red-faced and sputter his trademark rejoinder, “Mom always liked you best!” A non-sequiter, but hey—it was all he had.

 

As for consistency with the American values these folks claim to be defending—can you picture James Madison or Benjamin Franklin responding to an argument with the equivalent of “Well, your mother wears combat boots!”

 

Me either.

Comments