So
in learning Thursday that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence went ahead (like he had said
he would) and signed into law a “religious objections” bill, all I can figure
is that some people are determined to be the last holdouts to accepting the
reality that such marriages are here to stay.
THEY’RE
PROBABLY THE ones who secretly are praying that conservative ideologue Supreme
Court justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas can convince a slim
majority of the nine-member high court to rule later this year that all these
federal appeals courts (including the seventh circuit here in Chicago) were
wrong to rule in ways that legitimized gay marriage.
Personally,
I think the new Indiana law – and the bills being considered in about a dozen
other states – is a whole lot of nothing.
Its
intent is to say that Indiana people and business interests can’t be forced
into doing something that would violate their own religious beliefs.
As
in those clergy members who might be asked to perform a wedding ceremony for a
gay couple, or all those businesses that cater to weddings for their livelihood
now being able to say they don’t want to deal with gay couples.
IN
CERTAIN RURAL parts of Indiana, that might well make it impossible for a couple
to be married locally if there aren’t a lot of alternatives readily available.
But
the Illinois laws that former Gov. Pat Quinn gave approval to included clauses
that exempted religious organizations from being forced into performing such
marriage ceremonies.
In
fact, the bulk of gay activists I have spoken to about this issue have conceded
that many such couples would be more likely to seek a civil service and a trip
to a friendly judge when seeking to be married. There really isn’t a problem.
As
for the others, I can’t help but think they will be the ones who suffer by
refusing to accept such wedding business. It’s their loss of income, and if
they get branded as some sort of ideological nutcase who tries to spread his
(or her) view onto others, it will be them who ultimately go out of business.
ALTHOUGH
I HAVE to wonder about a florist who thinks it offends his sense of self to be involved
in a gay wedding. Does he think that standing up against certain marriage
somehow makes his (or her) line of work appear less effeminate? Or are they
merely covering up their own leanings on the issue?
It’s
nonsensical, and I can’t help but think that those people living east of Indianapolis
Boulevard (the part of Indiana west of that street really does feel like an
extension of the Chicago area) are envisioning problems that simply don’t exist
– all because they want to be on the record as opposing what is happening with
regards to marriage!
A
view that isn’t shared by many. Reading the local press makes
it seem like a lot of businesses are opposed to this change – and, in fact, are
making sure potential customers know of.
As
though they think making their services or goods available to all is the
ultimate way to make a profit in business.
OF
COURSE, THE supporters of “religious objections” are probably ranting right now
about how “liberal media!?!” (their favorite target) is distorting their idea
of truth by paying attention to the elements they’d rather discriminate
against!
It
further reinforces the notion that the ultimate losers in this Hoosier way of
thinking (which I’m sure there is a minority of Illinoisans who sympathize with
them) will be the hard-core ideologues who want to live in their own,
small-minded world.
That
wouldn’t be so bad, except they also think the rest of us are supposed to live
there with them in a subordinate role!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment