Guest column: Government should get out of the business of marriage

36

By Mike Delph
State senator

With the flurry of federal litigation regarding Indiana’s marriage statute, a law that has been on the books since 1986, it appears that our Hoosier society is on the verge of walking through a door never negotiated. Homosexuality is probably the most discussed sin in a sea of hundreds. This Christian certainly stands in the front of the line of those in need of mercy and grace. But what the litigation suggests is indeed profound in terms of how our society orients itself and more importantly governs itself.

State Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel

State Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel

Guest columnYou see principles of self-government were always predicated on a strong moral foundation usually anchored by our value system based in large part on the Bible. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Back then, it’s hard to imagine these rights included gay marriage or civil unions. Especially when the Creator referenced is the same Creator from the Bible, the same Bible that references homosexuality as “an abomination in the sight of God.”

Rights come from God and are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away by man, or more importantly, by government. Governments are instituted among men to protect those rights. Not even courts have the power to create or remove rights. So how can a right exist that does not come from our Creator and what modern rights do we honestly believe are divinely inspired as opposed to invented and imposed by a left-wing orthodoxy?

Probably the biggest mess of all was when the government started involving itself in marriage. Tax benefits, estate planning benefits, societal legitimacy are all things traditional marriage brings participants. Even so the stability of society from traditional two parent families has served our state and nation well for years. This is what we are walking away from in our unquenchable thirst for political correctness and false tolerance.

Now there is evidence that not only will businesses be sued for operating according to their own faith traditions, but churches themselves can be sued if they refuse to ordain a union their God rejects. Social order has been inverted and no one knows the impact, not even the staunchest advocates for this hard turn to the left. I recall a lecture down in Bloomington when I was in college by William F. Buckley. He was answering a question regarding the legalization of marijuana, something to which he seemed sympathetic. He said that until societies truly understand the social costs and benefits of public policy and know that the benefit outweighs the cost, they should tread carefully. No one knows the end of the path we now walk.

Perhaps we should consider this in the case of opening the floodgates to traditional marriage. No one with a soul wants someone harmed or discriminated against for being gay. But they also don’t want 200 plus years of social norms flushed down the drain without knowing the impact on the world. This is our dilemma. We are becoming a society and world without boundaries. Anything goes if it has a market.

The liberal indoctrination is endless as we watch cultural elitists attack traditional values and bedrock American social norms. Mickey Maurer, owner of the IBJ, and John Krull, journalism director at Franklin College and publisher of The Statehouse File (and former head of the ICLU), have both used their positions and media outlets to promote intolerance of traditional social norms, including long held Judeo-Christian views. Political reporters Brian Howey and Jim Shella reinvent the chic diet of false entitlement, false rights, and false fairness while attacking proponents of traditional values suggesting a seemliness and dirtiness for those that cling to their guns and Bibles. And they are all supposed to be friends of the American experience, friends of freedom when it agrees with their perverted worldview.

It’s past time that we consider removing marriage completely from the confines of government, and let the church and other faith-based institutions marry according to their own belief systems and traditions. If I have learned anything over the last months in the HJR3 debate, opponents of traditional Judeo-Christian values don’t fight fair or with honor. They fight to win, and to date have been very successful. I have to give the devil his due. But the issue is still unresolved and thinking members of faith still have time to engage. There is hope for an outcome where we all can win. By then we may have a better understanding of the net social cost or benefit from the path we march down.

Mike Delph is a Republican state senator from Carmel representing Senate District 29. 

Print Friendly

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

36 COMMENTS

  1. I did not expect Delph to be one who believes we should get out of the marriage business. He is spot on. Indiana should take the lead in this movement.

    • …

      ATTENTION:

      If there was EVER an example of an extremist, intolerant religious politician acknowledging that same-sex marriage IS coming to Indiana,

      ….THIS article is it.

      Delph is acknowledging his bigoted war is lost.

      It’s a great day for America and the freedom the USA represents.

  2. Government should get out of dealing with legal contracts? Delph is a bigger doofus than I thought!

    • Delph is a dishonest fool. He doesn’t want government out of marriage he wants government to prohibit certain groups of people from marrying. Being a nascent Theocrat, he wants to be among those who get to say who can marry and who cannot. There is something quite wrong with Mike Adelph.

        • They lost the battle so now they want to do away with what they were fighting for. It’s about all you need to know about them. I wonder how many of them have told their spouses that they, seeing the tide of history roll over them, are now for doing away with marriage.

          • You’re right, I’m sure. I was hoping this “guest column” was an April Fool’s joke!

          • Elkay,
            It was a Jan.- Dec. Fool’s joke of a column. Dolph is a very sick man. He longs for the day he is once again only an April Fool.

          • Bandana; A bud just sent me something its a lesson in Man,faith,and battles and doing away with what one fights for. Mostly about “Men” family and legacies how doing the right thing sometimes takes a blue ton of courage. Indiana needs to learn how to see people before issues again,this is worth the time.

            g.com/videos/search?q=franz+and+charlie+brown&qpvt=franz+and+charlie+brown&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=1F8549AA2798049A356

          • Thanks V. That is great. I’ve watched an awful lot of WWII footage, don’t know how I missed something like that. Stigler was a helluva man, I’m glad he could keep quiet about what really happened and get to live his life out.

          • Bandana: The CBS video,35,000 hits,they did a good job,had an Uncle from there served in the mighty Eigth,B-17e’s and G’s AAF 37,M.E.T.O 22,Bombardier 10 right seat,5 left. 12/44 Sneaderton heath to Bremen,covered,two runs,alternate,rail yards Frankfort,Main,three more flak fields,got’em bailed out around 4k hung in a tree until the German home guard removed him,stalag POW hospital discharged to the states,after return across the north sea in a hospital ship,in traction, Always said,that nearly killed,him,didn’t. War injuries never really left him comfortable,he always worked,never drew a penny until retirement. He had a good life,we make sure the flags and flowers are up on St Joe hill every memorial day. Good Man as well,its a wonder. The guy went through hell’s maelstrom every mission,one of my hero’s for sure,one of the reasons I still come in that damn town. Have others, however the way the place is being run now,really,visiting isn’t worth spit.

            Thanks for the look,betcha my Uncle would thank’ya,as well.

    • It’s a license not a contract. If we are going to change the qualifications but not grant it to all who qualify, then we need to not issue a license at all.

  3. ….

    I have no problem with government staying out of the personal lives of it’s citizen voters.

    But this article is one of those….

    “Oh. Ah. Oooh. I wish this is how things were…!!

    ….

    But they are NOT that way.

    The fact is THE GOVERNMENT IS IN THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS.

    And because government is IN the marriage business, the law, the courts, rulings by federal courts, majority national opinion…

    …and the final arbiter, the SUPREME COURT of the United States, have acknowledged that banning recognition of same-sex marriage violates the constitutionally protected rights of those citizen voter’s equal protection marriage law rights. The SUPREME COURT ruled the same bans violated the same marriage rights for interracial and inter-faith marriages.

    And Delph’s comments….well, ok, good for him. There’s no law against MUSING about the way you wish things were…EVEN WHEN THOSE MUSINGS ARE OUTRIGHT BIGOTRTY.

    …

    But let’s be CLEAR.

    IF Indiana got OUT of the marriage business, Delph and a bunch of other extreme morally challenged people…

    …who HERE are saying they think government should get OUT of the marriage business….

    ….would be COMPLAINING that government abandoned family values and strong marriages by taking away marriage laws.

    Muse all you want.

    Same-sex marriage laws are coming to Indiana.

    • OK, you got to jump around squawking “BIGOT” again.

      The supreme court has not ruled what you are claiming.

      But let’s deal with the issue rather than your incessant hyperbole.

      Delph is right in that this false tolerance has resulted in outcomes that most did not anticipate, namely, a right to a same sex marriage has now morphed into a right to a same sex wedding. Courts are now ruling that a right to a wedding cake trumps freedom of religion.

      Perhaps you could offer another solution to the problem of churches and businesses being forced to service non traditional weddings other than the state getting our of the marriage business. Or you can just yell “BIGOT” at anyone who dares to think out of the Weinz box.

      • …IN FACT:

        Indiana Enoch,

        If you were authentic that you want government OUT of the business of marriage…

        …I am sure you want to additionally eliminate the TAX FREE STATUS for churches.

          • Indiana Enoch:

            Not at all. What I am displaying is that YOU are not authentically for the separating government from the marriage and church issue.

            Nothing about you is authentic on the same-sex marriage issue. You claim you’re trying to be fair to others by being against it. You claim you’re wishing government would stop being involved in marriage issues.

            None of those claims are true. You are not authentic in any of those claims otherwise you would also authentically choose to separate the church from government entirely.

            What is authentic about you I-E?

            You wish to discriminate against citizen voters…a/k/a…bigotry.

            Bring on the whining about being identified as a bigot again. It’s the one response you’ve been reduced to.

          • I ask you to contribute solutions, and all you offer are more personal attacks and trips down the bunny slope.

          • Indiana Enoch….what don’t you get?

            The solution’s already been decided. Same-sex marriage IS coming to Indiana, and all bans against will be overturned.

            Even Delph is acknowledging it.

            The world you want to live in, where bigotry and discrimination prevents same-sex marriage from enjoying equal status…..it’s gone.

          • So you’re OK that marriage will still be denied to some with the same qualifications of consent and commitment and that churches and businesses will be sued under a right to a wedding?

    • You would have a valid argument if you did not attempt to redefine the meaning of marriage as has been used in my country and around the world for centuries. That is your biggest stumbling block.

      • You’re wrong about that you know. The Supreme Court disagrees with you too. Not to mention most of the rest of the USA.

          • At least you’re acknowledging the same-sex issue was lost in the Supreme Court.

            If the Court rules otherwise in the future (which it won’t, too many Americans, and the Courts, especially the future generation of the country are for recognizing same-sex marriage)…then THAT will make their ruling Constitutional.

          • You sound like those advocating slavery in the 1800s. We all know slavery is not right but by you’re reasoning since “too many Americans” thinks its right and if the Supreme Court said is was OK, you would be fine with that.

            Wait a minute. First, in that scenario the Supreme Court would have to redefine the meaning of slavery. Just like they wrongly accepted your redefinition of marriage.

          • Not at all. What I AM acknowledging is the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. And I am acknowledging that public opinion can influence the Court’s ruling.

            But the Court’s ruling last June, a WIN for same-sex marriage rights, creates a path for ALL State bans against same-sex marriage to be OVERTURNED….exactly as the Supreme Court did for the remaining States that had bans against interracial and inter-faith marriage.

            This is over. All that is left is for the bigots to whine about it.

        • Yeah right, how did that “90% of the US population supports gun control” fantasy work out for you?

  4. The SCOUTS did rule in favor of slavery 7-2 decision the two dissing justices were the only republicans on the court…So according to winy Barry ball washers comment he is all for slavery since the SCOUTS is the final arbiter…..http://www.ushistory.org/us/32a.asp

Comments are closed.