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!