The Great Distraction

There are times in every man's life when he realizes that the place that he loves and calls home is not what he thought it was. And though it may alienate him from the rest of the community around him, he knows in his heart of hearts that he must take a stand against something. There is a bill that was passed by the Indiana State Legislature, HJR-6, that will define marriage in Indiana as only between a man and a woman. And while there are many emotional and moral reasons why I am opposed to this, I will stick to the fundamental beliefs that government regulating behavior never ends with what people intended.

As someone who has held a belief in a limited form of government, I find it a bit ridiculous that some people who claim the same train of though advocate for this law. The government was originally designed to serve the basic needs of the people that they couldn't provide for themselves, as well as to help oversee issues between the states. In modern terms, the government should only provide defense services as well as making sure that the states are running smoothly. That is the role that the Federal Government was originally designed to have and no where in there is the room for the regulation of the behavior of people. The state governments are designed much in the same way. The states are intended to provide services like education, safety, transportation (roads, highways, bridges), and some very basic social programs (if they have to be enacted they should be at the state level). Again, no where in that description is there room for a regulation of someone's behavior. The government has no role telling people what they can and cannot do. They exist to serve us, not regulate us.

Another reason is the fact that this goes against what Gov. Mitch Daniels has said on the national stage. While the governor has been starting to lay the foundation for a possible run for the White House, he has called for "a truce on social issues" until the national debt is under control. Meanwhile, the state that he controls is busy enacting laws against homosexuals while slashing billions of dollars from every form of education. And the problem is, most people won't realize that they are being distracted from what really needs to be taken care of. While people's children are facing larger class sizes, less after school programs, cuts in athletics and music, and higher tuition costs, they are going to be engaged in a emotion-filled debate over a topic that has no Constitutional standing in government. They are being distracted by something that doesn't need to be addressed and all the while, letting the government get away with not actually accomplishing what really needs to get done.

Finally, there will be people that make the claim that America was formed on Biblical principles, and therefore should enact laws based on those principles. However, that is a very selective reading of the document, as they obviously miss the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause states that government will not endorse or establish an official religion for the nation. That means that despite whatever religion the Founding Fathers may or may not have had, the government cannot base laws off of any religion. You will see the same people make the case for anti-Shari'a laws in various states across the country. Yet, they feel that the Bible can be used instead? The Constitution does not say that Christian beliefs and texts can be used, but Muslim ones cannot. It states that the government shall not establish ANY religion or have ANY religious test. Therefore, using the argument that America is a Christian nation is unconstitutional and cannot be made.

Ultimately, it is up to the people to decide whether or not they are going to allow their representatives to make this decision in their name. We can make sure that our representatives actually tackle the problems that face us, while not being distracted by the petty laws that have no business even being discussed. It is time that we stand up against our representatives using the passion of people's convictions against them. They need to take care of the people that need it and actually deal with the problems that we face. Rather than masking budget cuts and the difficult choices that we need to face together by bringing up unnecessary and divisive laws, they need to tackle the real issues head-on while letting the people they "represent" have a voice. And if they cannot do this, maybe it is time to give someone else an opportunity at the Statehouse.